Circumcision

[yasic]

The same as folks with a foreskin? Tissue, napkin, etc.

Not all of us. I personally use the foreskin itself. Clipping and holding down the foreskin tight is a painless an easy way to hold it. I can thus touch in the morning without getting out of bed or even taking off the blanket to expose myself to the cold, and have a 100% guarantee of no mess. I then head to my bathroom for my usual morning toiletries without missing a beat. No need to worry about people finding used tissues when they visit, no chance of 'slippage' and getting my bed or computer desk dirty, etc.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I think it should be up to the child. Case in point: While my parents didn't bother to wait until I was old enough to ask me if I'd want to be circumcised, they DID however, ask me if I wanted braces for my teeth when I was mature enough to make that decision. I turned down the offer for braces. Why couldn't they have applied this same courtesy that they afforded my teeth to me penis? Penis > teeth, imo. (just being funny there. Or maybe not)

Clear away the clutter and this is what the thread is about: how much control a parent has over a child. Do we remove a girl's breasts to avoid cancer later in life? Do we let parents tattoo newborns? No to both.

However to drag up an old argument, someone mentioned that we complain about the boy 'not being able to give consent to a circumcision' but see no problem with deciding whether he should be born at all (abortion).

Parents have always made major life decisions for their offspring - they what clothes they wear, what they eat, what schools they go to etc. More importantly they decide whether they live at all. Increasingly they decide what gender they are. All of these things are far more life-altering than whether they have a foreskin or not. Basically it's about drawing a line between the two. I would still say circumcision in on the safer side of the line though.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Not all of us. I personally use the foreskin itself. Clipping and holding down the foreskin tight is a painless an easy way to hold it. I can thus touch in the morning without getting out of bed or even taking off the blanket to expose myself to the cold, and have a 100% guarantee of no mess. I then head to my bathroom for my usual morning toiletries without missing a beat. No need to worry about people finding used tissues when they visit, no chance of 'slippage' and getting my bed or computer desk dirty, etc.

Now this is the kind of debate we don't get in church.

 

[Aradia]

Mine did it for religious reasons. And to me, that's not a good reason at all.

I see it as a perfectly good reason. But I don't view religion as evil. *shrug*

Incidently, are you playing devil's advocate on this issue? I've seen a few of your posts in other threads, and this line of postings don't match up to other posts I've read. Just curious.

How does it not match up, out of curiosity?

 

[selfinflikted]

Not all of us. I personally use the foreskin itself. Clipping and holding down the foreskin tight is a painless an easy way to hold it. I can thus touch in the morning without getting out of bed or even taking off the blanket to expose myself to the cold, and have a 100% guarantee of no mess. I then head to my bathroom for my usual morning toiletries without missing a beat. No need to worry about people finding used tissues when they visit, no chance of 'slippage' and getting my bed or computer desk dirty, etc.

TMI, dude. TMI!!!

 

[yasic]

Clear away the clutter and this is what the thread is about: how much control a parent has over a child. Do we remove a girl's breasts to avoid cancer later in life? Do we let parents tattoo newborns? No to both.

However to drag up an old argument, someone mentioned that we complain about the boy 'not being able to give consent to a circumcision' but see no problem with deciding whether he should be born at all (abortion).

Parents have always made major life decisions for their offspring - they what clothes they wear, what they eat, what schools they go to etc. More importantly they decide whether they live at all. Increasingly they decide what gender they are. All of these things are far more life-altering than whether they have a foreskin or not. Basically it's about drawing a line between the two. I would still say circumcision in on the safer side of the line though.

Wait: So you think parents should not be able to tattoo their children but should be able to circumcise them?

If so, how on earth could you make that conclusion? Tattoo's can be reversible and have no actual downsides and are a much simpler and more painless procedure, while circumcision are not reversible and do have tangible downsides.

 

[angelA18]

Circumcision for are now widely performed by some quarters, they have confidence that by Circumcision
making the disease more easily avoided

 

[selfinflikted]

Clear away the clutter and this is what the thread is about: how much control a parent has over a child. Do we remove a girl's breasts to avoid cancer later in life? Do we let parents tattoo newborns? No to both.

However to drag up an old argument, someone mentioned that we complain about the boy 'not being able to give consent to a circumcision' but see no problem with deciding whether he should be born at all (abortion).

Parents have always made major life decisions for their offspring - they what clothes they wear, what they eat, what schools they go to etc. More importantly they decide whether they live at all. Increasingly they decide what gender they are. All of these things are far more life-altering than whether they have a foreskin or not. Basically it's about drawing a line between the two. I would still say circumcision in on the safer side of the line though.

Well, like I said earlier, it's certainly not the end of the world for me. And, as I said before, I'd probably have had it done later in life, but at least I would've made that choice.

Without opening up another can of worms, I'll give you my viewpoint on the whole "choice" thing as succinctly as possible. It's been brought up in this thread already, but I'll reiterate: I think while a fetus is in utero, it is, to me, clearly the sole property of the parent. While, were I female, I would never have an abortion personally, I wouldn't deny someone else the right to choose for themselves.

And yes, parents make choices for their children all the time, out of obvious necessity. I just don't think it's necessary for a parent to make such a choice for a child, when if given enough time, the child can make the decision for himself later in life. What's the hurt in waiting? None that I can see.

 

[yasic]

Now this is the kind of debate we don't get in church.

Join us atheists, we have much more interesting discussions

 

[selfinflikted]

I see it as a perfectly good reason. But I don't view religion as evil. *shrug*



How does it not match up, out of curiosity?

I don't view religion as inherently evil, but I feel that a lot of what it has become contemporarily, is extremely close to evil.

As far as the second part, I dunno. It's hard to put my finger on it. You seem like a perfectly reasonable person, arguing for an unreasonable procedure. Like I said before, what's the point in not waiting until the boy can decide for himself?

 

[selfinflikted]

Circumcision for are now widely performed by some quarters, they have confidence that by Circumcision
making the disease more easily avoided

If English isn't your first language, ok then. If it is...

I don't even...

 

[Aradia]

And yes, parents make choices for their children all the time, out of obvious necessity. I just don't think it's necessary for a parent to make such a choice for a child, when if given enough time, the child can make the decision for himself later in life. What's the hurt in waiting? None that I can see.

Two points:

1, which I think I brought up before, is that I *think* that there are men who would rather have been circumcised at birth due to the pain factor and/or trauma -- real or imagined -- of having it done as an adult. If it's any indication, lots of guys squirm when they find out I've had a vasectomy -- let alone some of the piercings I've had.

2, once again, parents make decisions for their children all the time. It seems like most kids don't complain about having been circumcised (evidence to the contrary?). Sure, it's possible that a kid will grow up and resent this or that decision that was made for them, but parents can't possibly know which decisions their children will resent later in life, or which decisions will have tangible negative results. At the time it seemed like a perfectly reasonable idea.

 

[Merlin]

The child. A persons body does and and always belong to that person. How old they are is irrelevant.



So who does?



They are unable to give consent because they have no way of communicating their answer. Therefore we should not cut off portions of their genitalia until they can decide for themselves if they wish this to be the case.

this would seem to imply that a 4 yr old girl may concent to sexual intercourse

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Join us atheists, we have much more interesting discussions

No thanks. :o

Without opening up another can of worms, I'll give you my viewpoint on the whole "choice" thing as succinctly as possible. It's been brought up in this thread already, but I'll reiterate: I think while a fetus is in utero, it is, to me, clearly the sole property of the parent. While, were I female, I would never have an abortion personally, I wouldn't deny someone else the right to choose for themselves
...
And yes, parents make choices for their children all the time, out of obvious necessity.

I disagree with your stance on for reasons I mentioned earlier, but that's another topic. As for making a desicion out of necessity, I'm not sure deliberately choosing a male foetus over a female one counts.

Wait: So you think parents should not be able to tattoo their children but should be able to circumcise them?

If so, how on earth could you make that conclusion? Tattoo's can be reversible and have no actual downsides and are a much simpler and more painless procedure, while circumcision are not reversible and do have tangible downsides.

Circumcision has some benefits, albeit minor ones. Tattoos have no benefits whatsoever and suggests the parent is doing it because it's a fashion statement or think it's funny. Jewish circumcision however is done as a dedication to their religion and is not taken lightly. Besides, tattoo removing is highly painful.

 

[Woden84]

No, it isn't. What real damage has it caused to your life?

None, just like if they cut off my earlobes when I was a baby. That would've done no real damage to my life either. Or if they gave me a tattoo as a baby.

Did your parents tell you they did it for no good reason?

Not in those words. "It's normal, it's just what's done to newborn boys." A most horrible reason for anything.

 

[yasic]

Circumcision has some benefits, albeit minor ones. Tattoos have no benefits whatsoever and suggests the parent is doing it because it's a fashion statement or think it's funny. Jewish circumcision however is done as a dedication to their religion and is not taken lightly. Besides, tattoo removing is highly painful.

Not all tattoos are for aesthetic reasons, there are some religions that do tattoos or similar (for instance scarring) for religious reasons. Either way I don't see how a religious reason is better than a fashion statement- I would even argue that it is worse as it is a form of forcing your religion, or at least a symbol of your religion, on your child even beyond the point when they can choose to not participate in your religion.

And as mentioned before, the benefits for circumcision (except rare medical ones) don't apply until the child grows up and is capable of deciding for themselves if they wish to be circumcised.

As such, it seems that a tattoo is literally better is every possible way to a circumcision on a baby.

 

[selfinflikted]

Not all tattoos are for aesthetic reasons, there are some religions that do tattoos or similar (for instance scarring) for religious reasons. Either way I don't see how a religious reason is better than a fashion statement- I would even argue that it is worse as it is a form of forcing your religion, or at least a symbol of your religion, on your child even beyond the point when they can choose to not participate in your religion.

Yep. I feel the same way. Though I am an atheist now, each time I glance at "myself" naked, I am reminded of my religious yesteryears.

 

[selfinflikted]

this would seem to imply that a 4 yr old girl may concent to sexual intercourse

They can. Whether it's a reasoned consent is a different story.

 

[Aradia]

I don't view religion as inherently evil, but I feel that a lot of what it has become contemporarily, is extremely close to evil.

I feel that a lot of religious *followers* and *leaders* might be extremely close to evil, but not the religions themselves.

As far as the second part, I dunno. It's hard to put my finger on it. You seem like a perfectly reasonable person, arguing for an unreasonable procedure. Like I said before, what's the point in not waiting until the boy can decide for himself?

Personally, I do see it as a cultural thing, as opposed to some who've expressed that it's not a cultural argument for them. But I'm oddly traditional, I take cultural relativism pretty far, and I'm a part of (albeit inactive these days) the body mod subculture -- within which there is a distinct subset of people in the modern primitive movement. I see the issue of circumcision as more than simply a question of choice, or perceived health benefits; I see it as also being a sociological/anthropological issue.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Not all tattoos are for aesthetic reasons, there are some religions that do tattoos or similar (for instance scarring) for religious reasons. Either way I don't see how a religious reason is better than a fashion statement- I would even argue that it is worse as it is a form of forcing your religion, or at least a symbol of your religion, on your child even beyond the point when they can choose to not participate in your religion.

True, some tribes do use tattoos but this usually occurs at a later age - usually during their teenage years. I'd also add that religious reasons far outweigh fashion statements. Religious rituals show a dedication to something or someone greater than yourself; a few are deliberately made painful to show how much they are willing to sacrifice. Fashion on the other hand is something we personally like and serves no greater purpose than looking good.