Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cthulhu]

And then it comes down to a libertarian vs. authoritarian view of rights and freedoms.  Is an action allowed until proven unacceptable, or prohibited until proven acceptable?

I side with the former

[Leafsnail]

Parents make pretty much every decision for a child, even decisions with permanent consequences, many much riskier than circumcision.

Any examples?  I can't think of any other case where we allow parents to elect to remove a part of their child's body.

EDIT: Elective meaning without any medical reason.

Circumcision is reversible

Really?  I know you can have surgery to make it kindof look like you haven't been circumcised, but that doesn't address the sensitivity change or anything else.  Certainly I've never seen any procedure that would qualify as "reversing" circumcision.

And then it comes down to a libertarian vs. authoritarian view of rights and freedoms.  Is an action allowed until proven unacceptable, or prohibited until proven acceptable?

I side with the former

I side with the former assuming you aren't inflicting it on someone else.  In that case I'd say that other person should be able to decide whether they regard the action as acceptable or not.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Circumcision is reversible

Really?  I know you can have surgery to make it kindof look like you haven't been circumcised, but that doesn't address the sensitivity change or anything else.  Certainly I've never seen any procedure that would qualify as "reversing" circumcision.

Yeah, the procedure he's talking about is effectively just growing a skin culture that looks similar to a foreskin.

But even if it were reversible, it wouldn't be enough to justify it. Putting someone through an involuntary medical procedure isn't any more alright because they can have it undone, which in this case they actually can't, as before.

And then it comes down to a libertarian vs. authoritarian view of rights and freedoms.  Is an action allowed until proven unacceptable, or prohibited until proven acceptable?

I side with the former

We all are going to be siding with the former, Cthulhu. Jesus, listen to yourself. Trying to backhandedly brand us as authoritarian for disagreeing with you isn't a legitimate argument.

Most of this discussion has been us providing the reasoning for why circumcision is proven unacceptable.

[Fenrir]

I am not particularly invested in the matter, but I would certainly think we should allow an individual decide for himself whether he wishes to have perfectly functional pieces cut off of him. 'Tis rather presumptuous, really, and a bit rude to be slicing a fellow without asking, even if it is just a little bit.

[GlyphGryph]

And then it comes down to a libertarian vs. authoritarian view of rights and freedoms.  Is an action allowed until proven unacceptable, or prohibited until proven acceptable?

I side with the former

I honestly have no idea which side this puts you on. The side where other people can cut off parts of your body without your consent (which seems pretty authoritarian, I'll be honest, though the authority you're appealing to here is the parents) or the side where the government prevents you from doing some small amount of irreparable damage to another person (which seems to be well within the scope of even a libertarian government, so... I guess your coming down on the no circumcision side?).

[Cthulhu]

The side that says the parents have the right to choose to give their child a cosmetic procedure of negligible risk.  In this situation the parents have the authority and if you want to say they don't have the right to do this you must prove that it's unacceptable.

Honestly, this strikes me as the kind of thing that will never be satisfactorily resolved (Though, if you're of my viewpoint, the situation is already satisfactory).  If well-researched scientific data shows major risks inherent to circumcision, then by all means it should be banned.  Until then, it's a negligible procedure that some parents want their kids to undertake.  That's the parent's right.

EDIT:  The biggest problem here seems to be that both sides are arguing with majorly different ideas of what we're arguing about.  If I'm arguing about a minor cosmetic procedure and you're arguing about cutting off part of the kid's dick then we're never going to see anywhere close to eye to eye.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It isn't the parent's right at all. Being a parent doesn't give you authority in and of itself, Cthulhu. It's easy to become a parent, especially if you're a careless person.

It's not even about the risk of circumcision, not really. It's about human rights. Children are people too, and there are things that even their parents can't rightfully force on them. Circumcision definitely falls under that.

[Leafsnail]

Honestly, this strikes me as the kind of thing that will never be satisfactorily resolved (Though, if you're of my viewpoint, the situation is already satisfactory).  If well-researched scientific data shows major risks inherent to circumcision, then by all means it should be banned.  Until then, it's a negligible procedure that some parents want their kids to undertake.  That's the parent's right.

I really don't like this viewpoint.  I actually think it's more dangerous than "We should allow circumcision at childbirth because these religions say we should".

I mean... imagine if some parents asked to have all their child's fingernails removed.  It would almost certainly cause a lot of problems.  But can you actually provide definitive evidence of that?  According to your position we should let parents do whatever exotic act of surgery they like as long as it hasn't been proven harmful yet (I guess that'd also apply if they made up some inventive new form of FGM).  I'm pretty sure parents asking to have this done would be refused and they would be arrested if they tried to do it themselves, for the simple reason that parents do not have authority to remove body parts from their children in any case other than circumcision.

EDIT:  The biggest problem here seems to be that both sides are arguing with majorly different ideas of what we're arguing about.  If I'm arguing about a minor cosmetic procedure and you're arguing about cutting off part of the kid's dick then we're never going to see anywhere close to eye to eye.

I don't think parents should be allowed to perform "minor cosmetic procedures" on their children either, leaving aside the fact that in this case "minor cosmetic procedure" is very debatable.  Although I guess "cutting off part of the kid's dick" is a correct if crude way of putting it.

[GlyphGryph]

Cthulhu, am I right in assuming that you also accept those variants of FGM that are predominantly cosmetic and don't pose any more health risk than circumscision?

[Agdune]

I like how this went from a discussion on mysoginy/misandry, femininism/...conservatism(...?) into a cyclical discussion on whether or not penises should be cut because of blah blah blah.

I guess people just gravitate towards topics they can relate to, and most of this board can probably relate to penises being cut/not cut, rather than double standards in social norms or whether or not radical feminist theory is valid.

Anyway, I haven't given up on you palsch. I'll keep the flame alive if you will! (but if you don't feel like continuing I understand. I also hate it when a well-thought through post gets eaten... kinda sucks the fun out of it)

[moocowmoo]

Well it is a bit of a derail, but this is very much relevant to double standards in social norms. No one would debate whether it is right or wrong to cut the genitals of baby female girls. It is agreed that it is wrong. But cut the genitals of baby boys, and look at the amount of debate over the rightness or wrongness of it. Boys deserve the same legal protection and aren't getting it. It is baffling.

[Neonivek]

Well it is a bit of a derail, but this is very much relevant to double standards in social norms. No one would debate whether it is right or wrong to cut the genitals of baby female girls. It is agreed that it is wrong. But cut the genitals of baby boys, and look at the amount of debate over the rightness or wrongness of it. Boys deserve the same legal protection and aren't getting it. It is baffling.

Well a lot of people believe that the double standard is actually just one standard because women are so disadvantaged that even talking about the unfairness towards males is so extremely sexist as to make you a outright sexist yourself.

Of course this also gets a bit disturbing when you watch movies like "Enough" for example. Which you would think the general audiance would be able to pick out the obvious "Uhhh... I don't think she is doing the right thing" aspects... but no.

[Criptfeind]

I assume you are not intact yourself, or if you are, then you would not object to the removal of your foreskin. That would be fine, because it is unimportant to you and it is your decision. But try to force that decision on an intact man who does believe his foreskin is important, and he would probably defend himself with violence before letting you have your way. Do it to a child, and they cannot fight back. I understand if it is easier for you to disbelieve me.

I'm going stop you right here bunko. You are, once again, arguing with a straw man. I did not say that I approved of the procedure. Stop putting words in my mouth. If you want to argue against me, do it against my point. (Which in case you have forgotten is the amount of damage you have said this does.)

[moocowmoo]

I assume you are not intact yourself, or if you are, then you would not object to the removal of your foreskin. That would be fine, because it is unimportant to you and it is your decision. But try to force that decision on an intact man who does believe his foreskin is important, and he would probably defend himself with violence before letting you have your way. Do it to a child, and they cannot fight back. I understand if it is easier for you to disbelieve me.

I'm going stop you right here bunko. You are, once again, arguing with a straw man. I did not say that I approved of the procedure. Stop putting words in my mouth. If you want to argue against me, do it against my point. (Which in case you have forgotten is the amount of damage you have said this does.)

That was not the only point you put forward. You also claimed that the foreskin and everything else removed in circumcision are not important. I tried to convey that it actually is. I already answered you as to the damage circumcision does and you rejected what I said, so I don't see what more I can do. I suppose it's too much to ask that you prove your claim that the foreskin is in fact not important and thus the removal of it is negligible.

[Neonivek]

I am starting to wonder if it is legal to tatoo your baby. Like... can you put a big skull tatoo right on is chest?