• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Vaccinations and Religious Exemptions

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
It would depend on what kind of tumour it is and where it is located in the body. If it is medically necessary, then I would have it removed, of course.

What we're talking about is medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery on a baby that has not given consent to have cosmetic changes made to his/her body. The comparison to a tumour is ridiculous, in my opinion. The fact that the surgery is purely cosmetic makes it completely unnecessary and wrong, in my opinion.

If there were some religion that said we had to pull out the eye of every first born male child, would you agree with that too? Where do we draw the line with this mutilation stuff?
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
If there were some religion that said we had to pull out the eye of every first born male child, would you agree with that too? Where do we draw the line with this mutilation stuff?
Again, you are comparing mutilation, where the normal function of a body part is impaired or destroyed (as it is in FGM) with cosmetic surgery.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Parents are stewards of their children. They exercise consent for the child until the child is old enough to do it themselves.
Which is exactly what parents do in the case of circumcision. It is in the best interest of the Jewish child to be initiated into the Tribe.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I can't see any way to respect your right to impose a religion on someone else. The only path I see to upholding your right to religious freedom also entails upholding the right to religious freedom of a child born to a Jewish family.
You need to butt out of tribal matters and stop imposing your outsider views. It's ethnocentric.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
That doesn't really address the question, I don't think. I find it bizarre that some God gave everybody foreskins when in actuality "he" doesn't want anybody to have foreskins./QUOTE]
It doesn't matter if you don't understand it. You need to butt out of tribal matters and knock off the ethnocentricity.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
That view is individualism. It isn't TRULY the view that community has its own inherent rights.
That's correct: the rights are inherent in the individual.

But let's unpack your idea of "inherent community rights" a bit: what rights do you think the larger secular community has to restrict its members and sub-groups, such as Jews and Jewish families?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Again, you are comparing mutilation, where the normal function of a body part is impaired or destroyed (as it is in FGM) with cosmetic surgery.
Both involve cutting away at a baby's genitalia. Without the baby's consent. Neither are medically necessary for the health and well-being of the baby.
The fact that you think "cosmetic surgery" on a baby's penis is not only acceptable but justifiably better somehow, than altering a baby's clitoris is bizarre to me, and just plain wrong.

Why not wait until babies are old enough to make their own decisions about what "cosmetic surgery" they would like performed on their genitals (or anywhere)? Why must it be done on babies who cannot consent to having their genitalia altered and also have no ability to grasp any sort of religious ideas?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I have talked with my husband and brothers, all of which were circumcised. There is not a problem with it. They can urinate, enjoy sex, and all of them have fathered children.
They don't have any experience with a foreskin either though, do they?

So if I can find a guy who says it did negatively effect him, then what?
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I have talked with my husband and brothers, all of which were circumcised. There is not a problem with it. They can urinate, enjoy sex, and all of them have fathered children.
The same could be said of a person who was given a good, hard slap as a baby. Should we be slapping babies?
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
And you are imposing YOUR cultural values on my tribe. That's ethnocentrism and its arrogant.
Actually, I'm not. I'm saying that all people should be able to make decisions about their own bodies, without such decisions being imposed on them by others.

Your view is that such decisions should be imposed on them. My view is that people should be able to make their own decisions.
Notice the giant difference. In that light, what is arrogant about my position?

And you can bet your bottom dollar that if some religious group is bringing harm to people, I'm going to have something to say about it. Religious belief doesn't give people free reign to do whatever they want to people. You seem to think it does, and quite honestly, I find that view to be wholly immoral and has been the cause of massive amounts of human suffering over the millennia.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
And you are imposing YOUR cultural values on my tribe. That's ethnocentrism and its arrogant.
I find your view wholly immoral. You just said that it's fine and dandy to sacrifice children to gods. That's called murder - I don't care what tribe you belong to.

My "cultural values" are that people have the right to decide for themselves what they want done to their own bodies, without it being imposed upon them, when they are unable to consent to any of it. If you think that's arrogant, then so be it. I find it obvious and reasonable.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Which is exactly what parents do in the case of circumcision. It is in the best interest of the Jewish child to be initiated into the Tribe.
Why can't they be "initiated into the tribe" after they reach an age where they have the ability to understand what it means to be a member of the tribe, and when they can consent to having parts of their body removed? Why must it be imposed upon them before this?
 
Top