The Real Circumcision Questions - At Least in My View

[mikkel_the_dane]

What? There is no need to identify as a non-religious nation. Some religions have some insane requirements and yet they are already not allowed in most Western Countries. Shouldn't we already have to have countries call themselves that? For example, in several European countries kosher and halal butchery are banned due to humane reasons. Should they have had to have the label put on them for that?

Yes, the insane card. Have you actually studied the basic history of the term of insane and how it always connects to local and limited in time cultural understandings?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most infant baptism is a mere sprinkling of water on the baby's head. Very very few places do the full dunk. It is more symbolic than not and will not traumatize a person for the rest of their lives as infant circumcision may. I have no problem with that sort of baptism of infants.

The part I consider unethical is the pledge of the parents/godparents/etc. to raise the child as a Christian to the exclusion of all other beliefs.

And while the ritual itself is a bit silly, the idea of the necessity of baptism - i.e. "this newborn baby is so evil that God would be justified torturing it forever if it were to die right now, so I need to do a ritual to erase the evil my child was born with" - implies some pretty awful things for a parent who thinks deeply about it.

Luckily, I think more often the parents' sentiment behind baptism usually isn't much deeper than "I'd better get this done or I'll never hear the end of it from Nonna."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, the insane card. Have you actually studied the basic history of the term of insane and how it always connects to local and limited in time cultural understandings?

Equivocation fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The part I consider unethical is the pledge of the parents/godparents/etc. to raise the child as a Christian to the exclusion of all other beliefs.

And while the ritual itself is a bit silly, the idea of the necessity of baptism - i.e. "this newborn baby is so evil that God would be justified torturing it forever if it were to die right now, so I need to do a ritual to erase the evil my child was born with" - implies some pretty awful things for a parent who thinks deeply about it.

Luckily, I think more often the parents' sentiment behind baptism usually isn't much deeper than "I'd better get this done or I'll never hear the end of it from Nonna."

Yes, the silly promise. Parents are either going to do that or not even without promising to do so to a priest. It is on the order of "I promise to never masturbate again".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You could push for legislation that your country identify itself as a non-religious nation and therefore outlaw the institutions for religion.

You could also divide up your country into religious and non-religious zones. That way religious and non-religious people could not have to interact with each other thus reducing the conflict.

You could also create school curriculums that educate children of the dangers of all actions you deem as unethical.

You could also institute required public discussions about why you consider it unethical and proof that your position is logical and ethical itself.

BTW: if you don't think I should care about the religious freedom of your children, why do you think I should care about your religious freedom?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Equivocation fallacy.

Sorry. But insane to us as not professional might not be insane and indeed one understanding of insane might be insane itself in another understanding. Cultural relativism is not that big a hit with you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

BTW: if you don't think I should care about the religious freedom of your children, why do you think I should care about your religious freedom?

Because it is not that simple. Our western ideal of freedom also has limits in practice and consequences for children growing up in it.

 

[viole]

Since the question about whether circumcision, of babies, has been asked several times in several different threads I have a different set of questions in this regard that I think hasn't really been addressed.

For those who say that it should be outlawed, regardless of your reasons, how far are you willing to go to make your view the reality, outside of a forum discussion?

1. In your local environment.
2. In your national environment.
3. Internationally.

How do you see your success rate being in let's say one to two generations from now?

Since in our country we banned Kosher and Halal, it should not be too difficult. Maybe it is already banned, like all mutilations applied to little kids.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Since in our country we banned Kosher and Halal, it should not be too difficult. Maybe it is already banned, like all mutilations applied to little kids.

Ciao

- viole

Which country is that?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

BTW: if you don't think I should care about the religious freedom of your children, why do you think I should care about your religious freedom?

I don't personally expect you to care about my religious freedom. It is not your responsibility to guarentee me religious freedom.

Again, the question I asked was not your reasoning but how far you are willing to go to accomplish the goal that you mentioned. Thanks for your response.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Why would I do that, exactly?

I'm not interested in outlawing religion. I support individual religious freedom, which is why I oppose the idea of parents trying to undermine the religious freedom of their children.

That being said, unenforceable law is bad law, and I can't see how a law against baptism would be enforceable.

You mentioned it as something that is not ethical and you didn't know how outlawing it could be enforced. I was giving you options similar to some of the laws that are still in the books in some parts of the US - based on what you mentioned about your view of it not being ethical.

31 Strange But True Laws Still on the Books - The Reeves Law Group

 

[Koldo]

Since the question about whether circumcision, of babies, has been asked several times in several different threads I have a different set of questions in this regard that I think hasn't really been addressed.

For those who say that it should be outlawed, regardless of your reasons, how far are you willing to go to make your view the reality, outside of a forum discussion?

1. In your local environment.
2. In your national environment.
3. Internationally.

How do you see your success rate being in let's say one to two generations from now?

1) Vote for politicians that want to outlaw it and raise awareness.
2) Ditto.
3) Not much. It is not like I can do anything about what is going on in other countries.

I don't know the odds of success in up to two generations. I am quite certain it will eventually happen though.

 

[Father Heathen]

How about asking another question. Circumcision is usually a religious choice. So what about baptism? This is also a religious choice. Should infant baptism also be outlawed? There is no example in the Bible of infant baptism but there are examples of infant circumcision. If we outlaw one, we shoud also outlaw the other.

As silly as baptism is, are you really trying to compare playing around in water to genital mutilation? Baptism doesn't generally cause pain or scarring.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't personally expect you to care about my religious freedom. It is not your responsibility to guarentee me religious freedom.

Upholding the rights of others is everyone's responsibility.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@Ehav4Ever - what's your goal with this thread?

It seems like you're fishing for people to say "yes, cosmetic surgery on babies is pretty awful and if I had the power - which I don't - I'd do something about it" in order to feed some sort of persecution fantasy/fetish.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Note that some women voluntarily undergo
what could be called "FGM" as adults. That
shouldn't be criminalized either.

For the life of me, I can't understand why any woman would want to have some of the source of her sexual enjoyment cut away -- but if she is an adult of sound mind, I agree: if that's the choice she makes, it's not for me or the state to get in the way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For the life of me, I can't understand why any woman would want to have some of the source of her sexual enjoyment cut away -- but if she is an adult of sound mind, I agree: if that's the choice she makes, it's not for me or the state to get in the way.

FGM seem to be much worse than male circumcision. It appears that it is still done at times, , but I couldn't take more than the first article that I read.

Social pressure is a very real, and sometimes evil, thing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

FGM seem to be much worse than male circumcision. It appears that it is still done at times, , but I couldn't take more than the first article that I read.

Social pressure is a very real, and sometimes evil, thing.

Yes, I'm sad to say, I agree with you. Social pressure is very, very real -- and we've all experienced it. How many of us actually had the courage to balk at what "the gang" was planning to do? I can only speak for me, and I've not always been innocent. Those are among the very, very few things I can honestly say I've regretted about my life.

But even then, I do not know how to say that a woman who makes an adult decision to submit to FGM because it's what her community dictates, and she wants to remain a part of that community, should be prevented.

Certainly, if I were consulted, I would tell her that this is so unnecessary, that people will "get over it," that you'll one day be welcomed back in. But after that, I repeat, who am I to say, "you shall not do this?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I'm sad to say, I agree with you. Social pressure is very, very real -- and we've all experienced it. How many of us actually had the courage to balk at what "the gang" was planning to do? I can only speak for me, and I've not always been innocent. Those are among the very, very few things I can honestly say I've regretted about my life.

But even then, I do not know how to say that a woman who makes an adult decision to submit to FGM because it's what her community dictates, and she wants to remain a part of that community, should be prevented.

Certainly, if I were consulted, I would tell her that this is so unnecessary, that people will "get over it," that you'll one day be welcomed back in. But after that, I repeat, who am I to say, "you shall not do this?"

And the problem is that if one prevents legitimate health care experts from doing this there are other far less safe alternatives. I would suggest make it legal but counseling must be available too.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

As silly as baptism is, are you really trying to compare playing around in water to genital mutilation? Baptism doesn't generally cause pain or scarring.

I am certainly not comparing pouring some water on a child with cut part of their body. I am saying why should any religious rite be performed on a child who cannot agree to receiving it. Achild who is cut cannot get his skin back and a child who is baptized cannot get un-baptized. Wait until they are old enough to agree.