Circumcision

[Aradia]

Same here, sans the kitties. I'd also like to know why also. Perhaps we can find out and discuss later

Genesis 17, from Bible and Mishneh Torah for All - Jews and Gentiles / Mechon Mamre

י זֹאת בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְרוּ, בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם, וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ, אַחֲרֶיךָ: הִמּוֹל לָכֶם, כָּל-זָכָר.
10 This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised.
יא וּנְמַלְתֶּם, אֵת בְּשַׂר עָרְלַתְכֶם; וְהָיָה לְאוֹת בְּרִית, בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם.
11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you.
יב וּבֶן-שְׁמֹנַת יָמִים, יִמּוֹל לָכֶם כָּל-זָכָר--לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם: יְלִיד בָּיִת--וּמִקְנַת-כֶּסֶף מִכֹּל בֶּן-נֵכָר, אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִזַּרְעֲךָ הוּא.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed.
יג הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל יְלִיד בֵּיתְךָ, וּמִקְנַת כַּסְפֶּךָ; וְהָיְתָה בְרִיתִי בִּבְשַׂרְכֶם, לִבְרִית עוֹלָם.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
יד וְעָרֵל זָכָר, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יִמּוֹל אֶת-בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ--וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא, מֵעַמֶּיהָ: אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, הֵפַר. {ס}
14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.' {S}

Wikipedia has some interesting comments with references in its entry for Brit Milah: Brit milah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And some interesting reading on the other side (particularly the historical aspects): Circumcision Choices

It seems to me that the issue of circumcision as necessary religious rite is left to the jews to discuss -- for non-jews, it's a matter of whether we respect religious rituals. Of course, atheists (esp. hard atheists) by and large have no consideration or respect for religion or religious individuals. They are, of course, far too enlightened for such things. *smirk*

For the same reason I can walk into the office next to mine, and snip my coworker's finger off.

I'm assuming you mean "can't". So, ignoring any legal implications, *why*? Why is it immoral (considering the current forum)? Why why why? =D

The question is something most people never seem to consider: Whence do we get "morality"? Whence do we get "right and wrong"? Mmm... I taste meta-ethics in the air...

 

[Aradia]

Its not comparable. The labia vs. the scrotum is not comparable. The point was if you can't compare the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] to the foreskin then you also can't compare the scrotum to the labia..their functions are apples and oranges.

You can't compare the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] to the foreskin because they aren't the same thing. The *hood* of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and the foreskin *are* the same thing. The scrotum and labia majora are the same thing. The [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] (glans) and the glans (penis) are the same thing. Should I continue? Maybe give a short lecture on the development of undifferentiated diddly bits?

 

[selfinflikted]

Genesis 17, from Bible and Mishneh Torah for All - Jews and Gentiles / Mechon Mamre

י זֹאת בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְרוּ, בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם, וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ, אַחֲרֶיךָ: הִמּוֹל לָכֶם, כָּל-זָכָר.
10 This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised.
יא וּנְמַלְתֶּם, אֵת בְּשַׂר עָרְלַתְכֶם; וְהָיָה לְאוֹת בְּרִית, בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם.
11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you.
יב וּבֶן-שְׁמֹנַת יָמִים, יִמּוֹל לָכֶם כָּל-זָכָר--לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם: יְלִיד בָּיִת--וּמִקְנַת-כֶּסֶף מִכֹּל בֶּן-נֵכָר, אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִזַּרְעֲךָ הוּא.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed.
יג הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל יְלִיד בֵּיתְךָ, וּמִקְנַת כַּסְפֶּךָ; וְהָיְתָה בְרִיתִי בִּבְשַׂרְכֶם, לִבְרִית עוֹלָם.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
יד וְעָרֵל זָכָר, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יִמּוֹל אֶת-בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ--וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא, מֵעַמֶּיהָ: אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, הֵפַר. {ס}
14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.' {S}

Wikipedia has some interesting comments with references in its entry for Brit Milah: Brit milah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And some interesting reading on the other side (particularly the historical aspects): Circumcision Choices

It seems to me that the issue of circumcision as necessary religious rite is left to the jews to discuss -- for non-jews, it's a matter of whether we respect religious rituals. Of course, atheists (esp. hard atheists) by and large have no consideration or respect for religion or religious individuals. They are, of course, far too enlightened for such things. *smirk*

Well, as far as who I personally respect and who I don't - it just depends on the person. Whatever religion they may or may not belong to is irrelevant. 'Course, I can't speak for all atheists. But the ones I know on this board are, for the most part, respectful (barring heated discussions on certain topics).

I'm assuming you mean "can't". So, ignoring any legal implications, *why*? Why is it immoral (considering the current forum)? Why why why? =D

Yes, I meant can't. Sorry about that.

I think it's immoral because one should have total and complete ownership of their own body. When that ownership is compromised through acts of non-consent -such as circumcision- I think that crosses a boundary that should not be crossed. To simplify - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The question is something most people never seem to consider: Whence do we get "morality"? Whence do we get "right and wrong"? Mmm... I taste meta-ethics in the air...

I think partly from society or culture as a whole, one's own rearing, one's own reasoning, and one's religion. Not sure where else morality, subjective as it always is, could come from.

 

[Exial]

This issue is consent.

Cutting off a clitoral hood, earlobe or foreskin are all equally unethical practices to force on a infant for religious reasons.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

You can't compare the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] to the foreskin because they aren't the same thing. The *hood* of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and the foreskin *are* the same thing. The scrotum and labia majora are the same thing. The [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] (glans) and the glans (penis) are the same thing. Should I continue? Maybe give a short lecture on the development of undifferentiated diddly bits?

They're not. The labia protects and covers the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] whereas the scrotum covers the testes for thermoregulation and protection of those core reproductive entities. Again..apples oranges. The labia has no other function than to cover the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and vaginal opening, it thermoregulates nothing. The main function of the scrotum is thermoregulation. They are inherently different.

Say what you want, the point is that they have inherently different functions so if you can't compare one you can't compare the other..at all.

ETA: I'm not disputing the clitoral hood as a better parallel, but the scrotum and labia have completely different functions. The whole reason that the scrotum is there is to suspend the testis away from the body so that they can remain at optimal temperature for reproduction. The reason the labia is there is to protect the vaginal opening from dirt and germs. So it truly is apples and oranges.

 

[Aradia]

They're not. The labia protects and covers the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] whereas the scrotum covers the testes for thermoregulation and protection of those core reproductive entities. Again..apples oranges. The labia has no other function than to cover the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and vaginal opening, it thermoregulates nothing. The main function of the scrotum is thermoregulation. They are inherently different.

Say what you want, the point is that they have inherently different functions so if you can't compare one you can't compare the other..at all.

You seem to be under the misguided notion that I'm comparing them based on function. I'm not. I'm comparing them on the basis of homology. Sorry. It's irrefutable.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

You seem to be under the misguided notion that I'm comparing them based on function. I'm not. I'm comparing them on the basis of homology. Sorry. It's irrefutable.

So your reasoning is to compare them according to position, not function. And that makes sense to you why?


Nevermind, don't answer that there is no point. We're talking function not position.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

But tell me, what's the difference between a street gang snatching babies from parents, and doctors snatching babies from parents? Would you be opposed to doctors forcibly circumcising babies against the parent's wishes?

It ultimately boils down to consent. Do the parents have the right to choose which parts of a child's body are to be cut off? I say no - the body is the child's body, not the parents. The child, and only the child, should be the one to make decisions as to how its body will be permanently altered.

Doctor's can't do it without the parent's consent anyway. And as I've pointed out before parents make far greater life-changing decisions for their children than merely removing the foreskin.

If consent is that important should we complain when parents choose their child's gender? Or feed them a vegetarian diet? Or give them formula insted of breast-milk? All of these have their own disadvantages - usually minor - but can be disastrous when they go wrong. Just like circumcision.

 

[Aradia]

Well, as far as who I personally respect and who I don't - it just depends on the person. Whatever religion they may or may not belong to is irrelevant. 'Course, I can't speak for all atheists. But the ones I know on this board are, for the most part, respectful (barring heated discussions on certain topics).

But the fact remains that, as far as I can tell, many of the people in this thread (including yourself) arguing against infant circumcision do not believe that religion is a valid reason. And I believe it was Skaloop(?) who expressed what so many atheists believe: religion is trivial.

If an atheist doesn't respect a theist's beliefs, it's ok, because the theist is deluded.
If a theist doesn't respect an atheist's beliefs, it's not ok, because they're forcing religion onto them.

Right? You know this is what a lot of atheists believe, whether they'll admit it or not. I see it constantly.

I think it's immoral because one should have total and complete ownership of their own body. When that ownership is compromised through acts of non-consent -such as circumcision- I think that crosses a boundary that should not be crossed. To simplify - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Hmm. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you... you mean, like religious infant circumcision?

I don't see things quite as black and white. For as hardline a stance as I take on consent (considering some of my, err, extra-curricular activities), I do make specific exceptions, and sometimes those exceptions may seem rather vague. I see intention as being a very important aspect to consider, and bringing this back to "ethics", I do not view morality through the lens of deontology. Why? Because it still takes multiple qualifications for most of the anti-infant circumcision people in this thread.

It isn't wrong because it's non-consensual. Were it merely about non-consensuality, then non-consensual *life-saving* procedures would be equally wrong.

It isn't wrong because it's a body modification. Were it merely about being a body modification, then consensual body modifications would be equally wrong.

What is it about bringing those two things *together* that suddenly makes them wrong, when separately neither one is intrinsically wrong? Why is a life-saving procedure ok to perform without consent? What if that child grows up resenting you because of it? But we don't simply view life as a "right", we view life as a "requirement", don't we? Suicide is illegal. We force life upon people, even against their own wishes. What makes that right? The argument can easily be made that circumcision is spiritually life-saving. Of course, that won't convince your average atheist, because the average atheist trivialises the beliefs of theists, believing them to be less important. But why?

I think partly from society or culture as a whole, one's own rearing, one's own reasoning, and one's religion. Not sure where else morality, subjective as it always is, could come from.

That's one of the topics of ethics. Here's something to consider: What about the possibility of a semi-objective source of morality derived from biology?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You both agree on issue at hand; why are you arguing what parts of the female anatomy are analogous to the male anatomy?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Doctor's can't do it without the parent's consent anyway. And as I've pointed out before parents make far greater life-changing decisions for their children than merely removing the foreskin.

If consent is that important should we complain when parents choose their child's gender?

Yes - parent's don't choose the child's gender, and only in exceptionally rare cases are they required to choose the child's sex. But if they did force their children to undergo sexual reassignment therapy, then we'd all be up in arms - because it's not the child's choice, and because it's unnecessary.

Or feed them a vegetarian diet? Or give them formula insted of breast-milk? All of these have their own disadvantages - usually minor - but can be disastrous when they go wrong. Just like circumcision.

Naturally. But the child has to be fed something, be it vegetarian or omnivorous, breast milk or formula. You have to pick one or the other - there's no way to wait till the child is capable of consenting.

That's why those decisions are placed in the hands of the parents. Ideally we'd let the baby decide, but that isn't really an option, so we go to the next best thing - the parents.

But circumcision is not an immediate concern. The child doesn't need to be circumcised - and, again, if he does need a circumcision for exceptional medical reasons, then if he's too young to make the decision himself, we have to go to the next thing: the parents.

So consent very much is important. Where possible, we should wait until the individual has made his or her own decision, especially when it comes to permanent alterations to the individual's own body.
But consent cannot be given until the child is X years old, so we simply wait for the child to grow up and make a decision for his or her self.
But, unfortunately, there are some decisions that must be made: what food or clothes to buy, what vaccinations to administer, etc. So, in those cases, we can't simply wait - we have to make a decision. So, in lieu of the child's own ability to make decisions, we defer to the parent's.


In summary: barring urgent necessities, we should simply wait for the child to grow up and make his or her own choices. Urgent things, like what to feed the child, are deferred to the parents, while non-urgent things, like whether to get a circumcision, can be put off until the child makes his own choice.

So let me ask you a question: why not wait until the boy can make his own mind up? What urgency is there in getting a circumcision while he's a baby?

Bear in mind I'm not asking about the dubious and, if extant, minuscule medical benefits of circumcision. These do not qualify circumcision as urgent. An appendectomy is urgent; a circumcision, it seems, is not.

 

[Aradia]

You both agree on issue at hand; why are you arguing what parts of the female anatomy are analogous to the male anatomy?

We don't agree. Caitlin says that scrotum and labia *are not* comparable, because they perform different functions. I say they *are* comparable, because they are homologues (the tissue actually starts out the same, and then either turns into labia majora, or fuses and turns into a scrotum).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We don't agree. Caitlin says that scrotum and labia *are not* comparable, because they perform different functions. I say they *are* comparable, because they are homologues (the tissue actually starts out the same, and then either turns into labia majora, or fuses and turns into a scrotum).

Yes, I get that, but you agree on the issue at hand: circumcision. What does it matter whether the scrotum and labia are comparable or not? Doesn't it just boil down to how you're defining 'comparable'? You're doing it by tissue homology, she's doing it by function.
But how does that affect the central topic of circumcision? I can see the benefit in comparing circumcision with the arbitrary excision of some other piece of flesh (be it the scrotum, the labia, or the clitoral hood), but does it really matter what you choose?

 

[selfinflikted]

But the fact remains that, as far as I can tell, many of the people in this thread (including yourself) arguing against infant circumcision do not believe that religion is a valid reason. And I believe it was Skaloop(?) who expressed what so many atheists believe: religion is trivial.

In my opinion, religion isn't trivial as it brings a great many people peace of mind where they would otherwise have none. As delusional, silly, or misguided as myself or others might think of their position, one cannot argue the fact that some people simply need religion to function. I'm ok with that, and whether I respect a person or not has very little to do with what they choose to believe. I do, however, tend to very quickly lose respect for religious people when they try to force their own beliefs (which, again, I think everyone should be entitled to regardless of how baseless they are) on others, and try to make them behave as they think they should behave. That's the real problem with some religious people in a nutshell. But, this is a tangent, so I'll digress.

If an atheist doesn't respect a theist's beliefs, it's ok, because the theist is deluded.

There's a difference between respecting people and respecting a thing that they believe in. I fully hold that people should be free to believe whatever they want, but I do not think that I should have to repect just any and every belief. I would, however, respect the people holding said beliefs.

If a theist doesn't respect an atheist's beliefs, it's not ok, because they're forcing religion onto them.

Atheists don't have a system of beliefs. Atheists have only one thing in common: Lack of belief. And, we're not asking for our lack of beliefs to be respected, we only ask that they not try to hold us to their personal standards with regards to their own religious beliefs.

On the other hand, one cannot deny that there are certainly people out there who would like nothing more than to have us all in a theocracy, so that we would have to behave according to their traditions. This is what I have a problem with.

Right? You know this is what a lot of atheists believe, whether they'll admit it or not. I see it constantly.

Quite the opposite. I don't know that at all.

Hmm. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you... you mean, like religious infant circumcision?

No, that's not what I mean. You know what I mean.

I don't see things quite as black and white. For as hardline a stance as I take on consent (considering some of my, err, extra-curricular activities), I do make specific exceptions, and sometimes those exceptions may seem rather vague. I see intention as being a very important aspect to consider, and bringing this back to "ethics", I do not view morality through the lens of deontology. Why? Because it still takes multiple qualifications for most of the anti-infant circumcision people in this thread.

Intention should count for a lot, and I don't just dismiss it out of hand. But, sometimes people cross a boundary they should not cross, even with the best intentions in mind. Frankly, I don't care what anyone's intention is regarding circumcision. I simply think it should be a matter of choice, and not a matter of force.

It isn't wrong because it's non-consensual. Were it merely about non-consensuality, then non-consensual *life-saving* procedures would be equally wrong.

Non-consentual life-saving measures can be wrong. Terri Schiavo anyone? Of course, when consent cannot be ascertained, I do believe we should err on the side of saving a life.

It isn't wrong because it's a body modification. Were it merely about being a body modification, then consensual body modifications would be equally wrong.

No one is arguing that consentual body modifications or wrong. As far as that goes, while consent is forthcoming, I pretty much think if you can dream it, go for it. It's your body, who am I to say how you can/cannot use/abuse it?

What is it about bringing those two things *together* that suddenly makes them wrong, when separately neither one is intrinsically wrong?

Consent. That's what makes it wrong or right in my eyes.

Why is a life-saving procedure ok to perform without consent?

Because, if prior consent hasn't been given, it probably means that prior objection hasn't been expressed either. If consent or objection cannot be ascertained, then like I said earlier, I think most people would agree that life-saving personnel should err on the side of saving a life rather than allowing death.

What if that child grows up resenting you because of it? But we don't simply view life as a "right", we view life as a "requirement", don't we? Suicide is illegal. We force life upon people, even against their own wishes. What makes that right?

I do not think it's "right". I think, if a person wants to die, then who am I to deny them that?

The argument can easily be made that circumcision is spiritually life-saving. Of course, that won't convince your average atheist, because the average atheist trivialises the beliefs of theists, believing them to be less important.

Even if I were religious, I think you'd have a hard time convincing me that my soul would be in jeopardy because I didn't have a circumcision. I think that's stretching it just a bit too far

But why?

I don't intentionally trivialize anyone's beliefs. I may not agree with their beliefs, but hey, if believing in a thing helps someone get by, how could I deny them that, and why would I want to trivialize the thing that helps them?

That's one of the topics of ethics. Here's something to consider: What about the possibility of a semi-objective source of morality derived from biology?

Sounds interesting. Want to elaborate? Now that I've thought about the possibility for only a couple of minutes now, I can see how this might be true for some specific morals.

 

[Rebekka]

Why is a life-saving procedure ok to perform without consent? What if that child grows up resenting you because of it? But we don't simply view life as a "right", we view life as a "requirement", don't we? Suicide is illegal. We force life upon people, even against their own wishes.

Is suicide illegal where you are?

 

[Skaloop]

But the fact remains that, as far as I can tell, many of the people in this thread (including yourself) arguing against infant circumcision do not believe that religion is a valid reason. And I believe it was Skaloop(?) who expressed what so many atheists believe: religion is trivial.

I don't think that was me. In fact, I seem to remember at the beginning of this thread saying something about how religion is pretty much the only reason I think it should be allowed (medical reasons not-withstanding).

Although it has been a long thread, and maybe I did say something that could be construed as "religion is trivial" but I doubt I used those words.

I personally do find religion to be trivial. Trivial for me. But I'm not advocating at all that anyone shouldn't be allowed to practice their religion, within reason. Circumcision is, to me, a borderline acceptable religious practice. I'd prefer if people stopped doing it to newborns, but I do understand the importance it holds. And I think most circumcisions are not done for strong religious reasons.

 

[selfinflikted]

I don't think that was me. In fact, I seem to remember at the beginning of this thread saying something about how religion is pretty much the only reason I think it should be allowed (medical reasons not-withstanding).

Although it has been a long thread, and maybe I did say something that could be construed as "religion is trivial" but I doubt I used those words.

I personally do find religion to be trivial. Trivial for me. But I'm not advocating at all that anyone shouldn't be allowed to practice their religion, within reason. Circumcision is, to me, a borderline acceptable religious practice. I'd prefer if people stopped doing it to newborns, but I do understand the importance it holds. And I think most circumcisions are not done for strong religious reasons.

I think it's this post http://www.christianforums.com/t7540861-10/#post56955185.

 

[Skaloop]

I think it's this post http://www.christianforums.com/t7540861-10/#post56955185.

Ah. Well, in my defense, I find their beliefs trivial, not their right to exercise them.

Anyway, I stand corrected. Thanks.

 

[Aradia]

In my opinion, religion isn't trivial as it brings a great many people peace of mind where they would otherwise have none. As delusional, silly, or misguided as myself or others might think of their position, one cannot argue the fact that some people simply need religion to function. I'm ok with that, and whether I respect a person or not has very little to do with what they choose to believe. I do, however, tend to very quickly lose respect for religious people when they try to force their own beliefs (which, again, I think everyone should be entitled to regardless of how baseless they are) on others, and try to make them behave as they think they should behave. That's the real problem with some religious people in a nutshell. But, this is a tangent, so I'll digress.

That's the same problem I have with atheists (esp. hard atheists) in a nutshell. But, yes, this is starting to drift a bit much. =D

There's a difference between respecting people and respecting a thing that they believe in. I fully hold that people should be free to believe whatever they want, but I do not think that I should have to repect just any and every belief. I would, however, respect the people holding said beliefs.

Sure. Hate the sin, love the sinner. In practice, it doesn't always work out that well.

Atheists don't have a system of beliefs. Atheists have only one thing in common: Lack of belief. And, we're not asking for our lack of beliefs to be respected, we only ask that they not try to hold us to their personal standards with regards to their own religious beliefs.

Be very careful about reading things into what I write. By which I mean, don't. I was not referring to an "atheistic system of beliefs", I was referring to the beliefs of an atheist; i.e., the beliefs of a person who does not believe in god. No more, no less.

On the other hand, one cannot deny that there are certainly people out there who would like nothing more than to have us all in a theocracy, so that we would have to behave according to their traditions. This is what I have a problem with.

One also cannot deny that there are certainly people out there who would like nothing more than to force everything to be an atheist, or non-religious.

Quite the opposite. I don't know that at all.

Well, I do see it constantly. Which is why I flipped sides a number of years ago and started debating against other atheists, in support of theists.

No, that's not what I mean. You know what I mean.

I know. But stop and think about why it was so easily turned around on you.

Intention should count for a lot, and I don't just dismiss it out of hand. But, sometimes people cross a boundary they should not cross, even with the best intentions in mind. Frankly, I don't care what anyone's intention is regarding circumcision. I simply think it should be a matter of choice, and not a matter of force.

Sure. You draw the boundary one place, others draw the boundary elsewhere. Should we flip a coin to see who wins?

Non-consentual life-saving measures can be wrong. Terri Schiavo anyone? Of course, when consent cannot be ascertained, I do believe we should err on the side of saving a life.

But it's non-consensual.

That's one of the problems with deontological ethics. There are so many exceptions to the rules that the rule itself seems almost pointless.

No one is arguing that consentual body modifications or wrong. As far as that goes, while consent is forthcoming, I pretty much think if you can dream it, go for it. It's your body, who am I to say how you can/cannot use/abuse it?

And yet, you are aware that many people *do* want to say how we can/cannot use our bodies. So there's another conundrum: are they right, or are you right?

Consent. That's what makes it wrong or right in my eyes.

For every rule (and rule modification) you come up with, I can probably find a dissenting example. Granted, you seem pretty darn socially liberal, so it might take me a few tries, but...

And we've already determined that it's more than simply a question of "consent".

Because, if prior consent hasn't been given, it probably means that prior objection hasn't been expressed either. If consent or objection cannot be ascertained, then like I said earlier, I think most people would agree that life-saving personnel should err on the side of saving a life rather than allowing death.

Argumentum ad populum? Really? I would've expected more from you. =(

I do not think it's "right". I think, if a person wants to die, then who am I to deny them that?

Good for you! Not everyone believes that, unfortunately.

Even if I were religious, I think you'd have a hard time convincing me that my soul would be in jeopardy because I didn't have a circumcision. I think that's stretching it just a bit too far

Really? You think breaking a *covenant with god* isn't a big deal? Try imagining how you'd really feel if you were a theist.

I don't intentionally trivialize anyone's beliefs. I may not agree with their beliefs, but hey, if believing in a thing helps someone get by, how could I deny them that, and why would I want to trivialize the thing that helps them?

"You can believe whatever you want, because I know it helps you get by, but don't you dare circumcise your baby. I know you think it's a covenant with god, but that's not a good enough reason. Sorry. Please break your covenant with god. I mean, there isn't *really* a god anyway, so it's not like any *real* harm will ever come of it."

So... something like that?

Sounds interesting. Want to elaborate? Now that I've thought about the possibility for only a couple of minutes now, I can see how this might be true for some specific morals.

No, not specific *morals*, but *morality* itself. An ethical theory. As far as elaboration goes, let's start with these:

http://condition.org/eowilson.htm
biological basis for ethics - Google Scholar

I didn't read the entirety of the first link, but it looked like a good primer for someone who hasn't really delved much into this aspect of ethics. I would guess, however, that some knowledge of ethics (the actual branch of philosophy) would probably be helpful (or required) to fully understand all of it -- but I don't know what your level of exposure to ethics is.

The second is a google scholar search, and some of the titles/abstracts look good. With those search terms, though, there may be some papers on bioethics (applied ethics), which isn't what we want here.

 

[Aradia]

Ah. Well, in my defense, I find their beliefs trivial, not their right to exercise them.

Anyway, I stand corrected. Thanks.

And yet you said that religion was a mediocre reason.