Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[Subduction Zone]

Sometimes not far from the truth!

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.

It could even become a fashion trend. If someone told me 20 years ago that putting ever larger hoops in a hole in one's ear permanently stretching the cartilage would become a "thing" I would have doubted it. Or that many millions of people would opt for a permanent picture being drawn on one's skin with countless at least somewhat painful shallow injections of ink, and especially by woman when I was twenty I would have laughed. People will put up with quite a bit of pain for a passion.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That is pure speculation of course, and a woman must have the right to decide for herself

To kill her baby as it's being born? For convenience sake? Why should anyone have that right?

 

[Wildswanderer]

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.

Hogwash. We've already established that many abortions involve babies that could be born alive.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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

Because life is sacred and should be preserved whenever possible.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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

Sounds like something a Hitler would say.

 

[Sheldon]

To kill her baby as it's being born?

It's not a baby, it's an insentient embryo, blastocyst or foetus, and a termination is never undertaken during birth, what a spectacularly stupid thing to claim.

For convenience sake?

Straw man fallacy.

Why should anyone have that right?

You have bodily autonomy don't you? Why should you have the right to take that away from women?

 

[Sheldon]

Hogwash. We've already established that many abortions involve babies that could be born alive.

It isn't a baby until after the birth, a baby is a very young child, it is sentient, and can experience both physical and emotional pain. As for late term abortions these are certainly not the norm, and I am all for making abortions and medical advice as freely available as possible to avoid this.

 

[Sheldon]

Because life is sacred and should be preserved whenever possible.

if its sacred why does the biblical deity relentlessly commit indiscriminate murder? Even were I to accept this woolly vapid sentiment, it is obvious that an embryo, blastocyst or foetus, is not a "life" in the same sense a sentient person is, and to grant rights to an insentient clump of cells, that would effectively take away the rights of sentient women, makes no moral or rational sense.

You can hate abortions, that's your choice, as I said if you don't like abortions, then you don't have to have one.

 

[Sheldon]

Sounds like something a Hitler would say.

Godwin's law, dear oh dear, your reasoning is relentlessly irrational.

 

[KWED]

To kill her baby as it's being born? For convenience sake? Why should anyone have that right?

A very late-stage termination would only be carried out under extreme clinical necessity. A woman can't simply decide to have an abortion after 24 weeks, let alone in the last few days. Even before 24 weeks it still has to be approved by a medical professional.

You have been told this repeatedly, yet you keep making the same dishonest claim. So much for your much-trumpeted moral superiority. If you have to lie to support your position, you know it is untenable.

 

[KWED]

Hogwash. We've already established that many abortions involve babies that could be born alive.

No we haven't. You have merely asserted it with no backup.
I gave you hard data showing that 96% of abortions are carried out within the first 12 weeks. A foetus cannot survive at 12 weeks, even with intensive medical intervention.

 

[KWED]

Because life is sacred and should be preserved whenever possible.

Well, at least you aren't one of those religious hypocrites who supports the death penalty.

 

[KWED]

Sounds like something a Hitler would say.

Actually, the "slippery slope" fallacy was the kind of argument often used by Hitler and other such populist rabble rousers. It appeals to the hard of thinking, which is probably why religionists use it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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".

Good lord, have you actually read my posts? I DO NOT advocate for circumcision. I think it is WRONG to force a procedure on someone without their consent. My ONLY argument is that having a MORE sensitive penis is not ALWAYS an advantage.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

I have AGREED that it makes the penis less sensitive. My ONLY argument is that reduced sensitivity does not NECESARRILY equate to less ultimate pleasure. And it IS subjective, which has been my point all along. You can't just AUTOMATICALLY assume that more sensitivity is ALWAYS better.

 

[QuestioningMind]

For an answer to the specific question.

Like I told you the FIRST time you asked, I'm 100% against anyone being forced to have this procedure. It's the same answer I gave you the SECOND time you asked and now I've told you for a THIRD time. Here's a hint, the answer will remain the same if you ask me a FOURTH or even a FIFTH time.

 

[Revoltingest]

Like I told you the FIRST time you asked, I'm 100% against anyone being forced to have this procedure. It's the same answer I gave you the SECOND time you asked and now I've told you for a THIRD time. Here's a hint, the answer will remain the same if you ask me a FOURTH or even a FIFTH time.

Your dwelling on the question of loss of sensitivity
still left me wondering a wee bit. But you're clear.
100% opposed. No religious exemptions.

Also from an earlier post....
"Ever listen to Freakonomics or Hidden Brain podcasts?
It's incredible what information can be teased out of people."
That question remained regarding the possibility of detecting
loss of sensitivity.

 

[dybmh]

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?

It has religious value to me.

 

[dybmh]

Remedies in tort aren't appropriate for such things.

Why not?

 

[dybmh]

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.

I hear you. I'm just curious how many Jewish men regret their circumcision. If it was addressed legally, that would be a good way to measure it.