Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[KWED]

No tolerance for FGM, IMO.

Why the inconsistency?

FGM and male circumcision are not comparable.

Why not? They both involve the unnecessary removal of part of an infant's genitals. Please explain the distinction that make one abhorrent barbarism and the other acceptable?

Neither Islam or Christianity require it in any case.

There is some debate about it in Islam. There are passages whose ambiguity (how unusual!) can lead to the conclusion by some scholars that it is sunnah. The vast majority of FGM carried out is because it is considered a requirement in Islam. Now, people can argue about whether or not this is actually justified by scripture, but the fact is that those doing the cutting and those taking their daughters to be cut genuinely believe that is is an Islamic requirement.

I understand your position and I am sympathetic. But I think the right of Judaism to exist is more important than the desires of those who find male circumcision distasteful.

Why would making child circumcision illegal lead to Judaism disappearing? Is that really all it offers to its followers?

 

[KWED]

Seems sexist, ie, bodily autonomy
for females, but not for males.

There are different kinds of FGM, some
less extreme than male circumcision.
I wager that it's political & social power
of Judaism that results in this inconsistency.
Muslims lack such power in the west.

Judaism would continue to exist if circumcision
were delayed until the child was able to freely
make the choice.
Claims that it would kill the religion are histrionic.

Grrr. You and your pesky "reason"!

 

[KWED]

As I mentioned before, there are plenty of guys who suffer from premature ejaculation who would LOVE to be a bit less sensitive. Less sensitivity may well mean that more stimulation is required, but you can't just assume that the end result is in some way inferior. It's POSSIBLE that guys who are less sensitive and require more stimulation end up having more satisfying orgasms. My point is that it's impossible to know for certain.

Apparently you can get a cream that serves the same purpose. But why go to all that bother when you can mutilate a child's genitals?
It is telling that the defence for routine circumcision of infants seems to have been reduced to "but some men suffer from premature ejaculation".

 

[KWED]

All I've been arguing is that it's impossible to know whether or not uncircumcised men have more pleasurable sex than circumcised men.

But that isn't the argument. "Pleasure" is entirely subjective. The argument is that circumcision leads to a reduction in sensitivity, which is true. The removed foreskin contains some of the highest density of nerve endings in the body. If an uncircumcised man pulls his foreskin back, puts on a pair of shorts and goes running, he'll last about 10 yards before he has to stop because the sensation of material against the glans is so intense. The circumcised man does this all the time.
It is demonstrable nonsense to say that there is no reduction in sensitivity.

 

[KWED]

FGM is mostly a North African practice that existed before Islam came about.

Male circumcision was also a practice that existed before Islam was invented. So why the differentiation?
FGM seems to have originated in Egypt put its prevalence throughout Sub Saharan Africa is thought to be due to a large extent to its adoption by Islam.
The key evidence is from Indonesia. Before the introduction of Islam in the 13th century there was no culture of FGM. Today, the majority of girls are victims and the Islamic Council of Indonesia has decreed it a religious obligation and opposed a proposed ban.
In this case, the claim of "cultural history" cannot apply. The practice is entirely Islamic in nature.

 

[KWED]

The decision is based on trying to predict what my child would want me to do. Would they want to be circumsised as an infant. As a circumsised Jewish adult, I can say that I'm glad my parents had me circumsised as an infant.

Why are you glad? What benefits has it conferred that you would otherwise have been deprived of? Why would you be disappointed to have a foreskin?

 

[KWED]

a ceremonial nick .

Isn't that Santa?

 

[KWED]

If a child feels like their parents violated their rights by circumcision or FGM, then why can't the court handle it? The parents make a choice hoping the child will agree with it as an adult. If they make the wrong choice there should be a legal route to address it.

So basically, no proscriptive laws. We can all do whatever we want to everyone, and if someone doesn't like it, the victim just takes the perpetrator to court.
Seems eminently sensible.

 

[KWED]

IAs far FGM is concerned, I reject the claim that it is a requirement of Islam.

So how would you respond to those scholars and religious organisations and parents who insist that it is a requirement of Islam, and can show scripture to support their case? Why accept the word of Jewish scholars but not Muslim ones?

 

[KWED]

Actually, the State serves an important role under God's authority. Hence why some tyrants don't get away with 'murder'... every time.

So why did god allow Stalin and Mao to get away with it for so long, and die peacefully in their beds? Did the countless millions of their victims mean nothing to your god? (This is where you say something like "Ah, but god was testing them")

 

[KWED]

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?

Maybe the white coat is like Joe 90's glasses? (one for the younger listeners there)

 

[Glaurung]

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.

For the most part, common sense should tell you where the line is. Grey areas would need to be debated and taken on a case by case basis. The common good served by preventing the domestic abuse of women outweighs a Muslim man's claim to having the right to beat his wife. On the other hand, I think a total ban on male circumcision in a country where Jews and Muslims have an established presence would do more damage to the common good than what would be gained. This is especially true in the case of Judaism where a total ban on circumcision would be an insufferably onerous restriction on Jewish practice, as circumcision is a long established requirement of the religion. Less so for Islam, as far as I understand it the general view is that circumcision is highly encouraged but not absolutely mandatory. After all, unlike the Hebrew Bible, there is no mentioned requirement for circumcision in the Qur'an.

Why the inconsistency?

For one, there is no religion which requires FGM. There are Muslims who claim that FGM is a religious requirement, but I'll direct you to post #358 by Debate Slayer.

For two, I don't think male circumcision and FGM are comparable, so there is no inconsistency. I consider male circumcision and FGM as two distinct issues. Further, even if the prevailing view of the Islamic scholars were that FGM is mandatory, it would not move me to wish to permit it for the same reason I don't think Muslim men should be able to beat their wives or for Hindus to be permitted to burn widows alive on their husbands' funeral pyres. Because to allow such would be against basic decency. You may think religious male circumcision is as indecent, but I disagree.

Why not? They both involve the unnecessary removal of part of an infant's genitals. Please explain the distinction that make one abhorrent barbarism and the other acceptable?

I just don't think male circumcision is so abhorrent, of so severe a consequence for the child that there is a compelling enough reason to prevent Jews and Muslims from being able to have it preformed. I do think having it done (on a child) for purely cosmetic reasons should be banned though.

There is some debate about it in Islam.

Yeah, and I don't care. If a Muslim family immigrates to the west they can darn well live with not being able to mutilate their daughters' sex organs.

Why would making child circumcision illegal lead to Judaism disappearing? Is that really all it offers to its followers?

Because circumcision it is an explicit requirement of the Mosaic Covenant. I don't care that you don't take Jewish beliefs seriously. I'm not interested in defending the doctrine as I'm not Jewish so I have no skin in that particular game anyway. But I would rather not live in a world where self-righteous progressives use the state to clamp down on people's religious freedoms. And I do think Jewish/Muslim/Coptic circumcision is a religious freedom issue.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What convictions does an two weeks old child have?

None, so it's absurd to treat them as if they're members of a religion.

I was talking about the adult the child will become.

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.

Oh, I understand: I'm hitting close to home, so you feel the need to lash out.

But I take it from your verse that you acknowledge that you have a "straw in your eye" on this issue, right?

 

[Revoltingest]

If a child feels like their parents violated their rights by circumcision or FGM, then why can't the court handle it?

The deed is already done.
I've heard of attempts to lengthen foreskin.
I don't recall how they turned out.

Remedies in tort aren't appropriate for such things.
It would be the same for FGM.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've made my opinion concerning consent crystal clear. Is there a reason why you keep asking me the same question over and over?

For an answer to the specific question.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

What is right....what is wrong...it's all based upon there
being enuf consensus to pronounce it as such. Even
religion works that way...although believers on the
various sides tend to believe they have The Truth.

 

[Revoltingest]

Isn't that Santa?

Aye, it's Santa...the ritual is a white bearded
jolly old man in a red suit touching the nether
regions of babies for God.

Hmmm....if circumcision of infants is made
illegal, parents could still do the ritual "nick",
as is sometimes done with FGM Type IV.
Then if the child grows up, & decides to get
the full slice & dice, they'd have that choice.

 

[KWED]

For the most part, common sense should tell you where the line is.

With all due respect, "common sense" should tell you that mutilating a child's genitals is some way over the line.

Grey areas would need to be debated and taken on a case by case basis. The common good served by preventing the domestic abuse of women outweighs a Muslim man's claim to having the right to beat his wife. On the other hand, I think a total ban on male circumcision in a country where Jews and Muslims have an established presence would do more damage to the common good than what would be gained.

But again, you are not providing any explanation for this special pleading. It seems pretty arbitrary to the objective observer.

This is especially true in the case of Judaism where a total ban on circumcision would be an insufferably onerous restriction on Jewish practice, as circumcision is a long established requirement of the religion.

So what? If the law prevents Jewish parents from circumcising their babies, god will understand. Not a problem. It's not like it's something that god is forced to impose by some higher authority.

Less so for Islam, as far as I understand it the general view is that circumcision is highly encouraged but not absolutely mandatory. After all, unlike the Hebrew Bible, there is no mentioned requirement for circumcision in the Qur'an.

Islamic practice is based on more than just the Quran. The sunnah is as important where it deals with issues not mentioned in the Quran. The Quran states "Obey Allah and his Messenger". So whatever Muhammad prescribes in the sunnah is a religious obligation.

For one, there is no religion which requires FGM. There are Muslims who claim that FGM is a religious requirement, but I'll direct you to post #358 by Debate Slayer.

There is nothing in that post that shows FGM is not Islamic.
As I have already mentioned, there are Islamic scholars and schools of jurisprudence who claim it is mandatory or recommended. It is mentioned in the sunnah where Muhammad advises a woman cutting girls to "not cut too deeply". Clear implicit permission.
It is simply wrong to claim that there is no scriptural or scholarly support for FGM in Islam.
So, should those Muslims who genuinely believe that it was prescribed by Allah, through Muhammad and is therefore a religious obligation, be allowed to practice it? My "common sense" says no, yours would appear to say yes.

For two, I don't think male circumcision and FGM are comparable, so there is no inconsistency. I consider male circumcision and FGM as two distinct issues.

Simply repeating your initial assertion does not take us anywhere.
One form of FGM is removal of the clitoral hood. This is biologically the came procedure as removing the foreskin. So, would you allow hoodectomies to continue? If not, why the inconsistency?

Further, even if the prevailing view of the Islamic scholars were that FGM is mandatory, it would not move me to wish to permit it for the same reason I don't think Muslim men should be able to beat their wives or for Hindus to be permitted to burn widows alive on their husbands' funeral pyres. Because to allow such would be against basic decency. You may think religious male circumcision is as indecent, but I disagree.

Once again, you are merely special pleading without providing any explanation. Why is giving a disobedient wife a bit of a slap (as instructed by god) so unacceptable but mutilating a child's genitals (as instructed by god) perfectly acceptable? There is no consistency in your position. A slap on the body might leave no mark but the baby is disfigured for life.

I just don't think male circumcision is so abhorrent, of so severe a consequence for the child that there is a compelling enough reason to prevent Jews and Muslims from being able to have it preformed. I do think having it done (on a child) for purely cosmetic reasons should be banned though.

Again with the inconsistency. Either circumcision is fundamentally acceptable or not.
You say on the one hand it is not a big deal and should be permitted, but on the other hand you think it should be banned.

Yeah, and I don't care. If a Muslim family immigrates to the west they can darn well live with not being able to mutilate their daughters' sex organs.

So presumably you believe that if a Jewish family immigrates to the west, they can likewise "darn well live with not being able to mutilate their sons' sex organs" as you don't believe that religious practice trumps human decency. Correct?

Because circumcision it is an explicit requirement of the Mosaic Covenant. I don't care that you don't take Jewish beliefs seriously. I'm not interested in defending the doctrine as I'm not Jewish so I have no skin in that particular game anyway. But I would rather not live in a world where self-righteous progressives use the state to clamp down on people's religious freedoms. And I do think Jewish/Muslim/Coptic circumcision is a religious freedom issue.

But you have stated that you would ban some religious circumcision, you self-righteous progressive. So yet again, why the inconsistency? (Saying "but I don't understand Islam" is not really an argument).

If FGM was "an explicit requirement of the Mosaic Covenant", then presumably you'd be fine with that as well.

 

[KWED]

Aye, it's Santa...the ritual is a white bearded
jolly old man in a red suit touching the nether
regions of babies for God.

Sometimes not far from the truth!

Hmmm....if circumcision of infants is made
illegal, parents could still do the ritual "nick",
as is sometimes done with FGM Type IV.
Then if the child grows up, & decides to get
the full slice & dice, they'd have that choice.

Indeed. As religious ritual is often full of symbolic acts and objects, why not have a symbolic circumcision ritual. The rabbi could draw a line around the base of the foreskin with a special pen, and when they reach 16, they can decide if they want to go the whole hog.
Seems like the perfect compromise.

 

[Sheldon]

My point is that your point is irrelevant. You can sneer at and mock the Biblical account all you want, but like it or not circumcision remains non-negotiable for Judaism. So any laws restricting circumcision must have a religious exemption. (Primarily for Jews).

Or you could just wait until a man is old enough to decide for himself. As for non negotiable biblical texts, that opens up a can of worms, unless you want to accept that trafficking female prisoners to be raped, condemning people as an abomination simply for being gay, or murdering someone for being a witch, and accept slavery, for example are non-negotiable? The morality of the bible belongs to an archaic age, and human morality has simply moved on, as it must.