|
| Thread: The Male Genital Mutilation Bill.... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
posted January 24, 2012 05:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin:
Quote:
atheists can't answer that question because they can't logically use the words "moral" and "immoral" so its a rather difficult qualifier for them
At the risk of going on a tangent, yes, they can. Not all atheists believe in objective morality, but I do, as do many others.
Agreed (with Mvass), morals are taught by parents and society, not just religion. parents and society can use the religion to justify morals by saying a divine being commands it of his people, but then there are these things called laws and social norms that work just as well without the rules of a God coming with them.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 24, 2012 08:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What you seem to have tough time understanding is that you are wrong.
Father takes a knife, chops off parts of his son's penis - against the law regardless of his religion - fact
Parents take their son to a doctor/"professional penis cutter" whatever he's called - not against the law because parents have the right to make "medical/religious" decisions for their kids as stated by the law in the USA regardless of their religion - fact
Look at your logic:
Father (mother?) chops off parts of son's penis - against the law regardless of religion.
Then you say, they take him to a professional to chop the parts off - not against the law because parents have the right to make medical/religious decisions for their kids
Aren't that formalities? If the reason in the second part is "because parents have a right to make that decision", then the question of whether a professional is required to make sure the mutilating is done by someone who knows his job is only a formality.
You could just as well make sure for the ejaculation example: it must be a certified fertaptizer who does it. That doesn't change anything with regard to the act.
The question is STILL the same:
Quote:
If some religious practices should be allowed, and others should not, what criteria do you use to determine one set from the other?
In other word - why SHOULD one be allowed and the other not?
@ Elodin
Quote:
So, JJ, if circumcision were done while the baby is in the womb, would it be ok then?
There is no foreskin to circumcise in the time of pregnancy an abortion is allowed.
Now, Elodin isn't that question actually working against you? Can you imagine that many mothers (after an abortion was out of the question, that is, they WANTED the baby, would ALLOW such dabbling with the baby in their womb, even if the docs would assure here that the risks for her and the baby were "minimal"?
I cannot imagine that, not by any stretch of imagination.
And since we are at it, let's have a look on these:
Quote:
1) Is the practice moral? (atheists can't answer that question because they can't logically use the words "moral" and "immoral" so its a rather difficult qualifier for them.)
Circumcision qualifies as moral because God commanded the Jews to do so.
This assumes too much, Elodin. WAY too much. What if people follow another God with another moral, a God that says, "Thou shalt not touch the flesh of a newborn until he reaches his fourteenth year, at which time he should make his own decision!" In this case, the practise would be considered IMMORAL.
So with this definition a practise was MORAL, if a deity commanded it. ANY deity.
Quote:
2) Is the practice required by/encouraged by their religion?
"Required" and "encouraged" seem to be two different things.
Quote:
3) Does the practice significantly harm the child.
Circumcision does not significantly harm the child and in fact offers proven health benefits. There are links to said benefits within this thread.
"Significantly" is certainly a word lawyers earn a lot of money with when they debate it at court. But however the definition is, it implies SOME harm is done. Obviously.
Quote:
Bak's proposal to ejaculate on his children is immoral.
Well, no. Back to your point 1): Your point states that he would act immediately moral, if his God commanded it.
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 24, 2012 10:29 AM |
|
Edited by Smithey at 10:32, 24 Jan 2012.
|
Quote:
Look at your logic:
Father (mother?) chops off parts of son's penis - against the law regardless of religion.
Then you say, they take him to a professional to chop the parts off - not against the law because parents have the right to make medical/religious decisions for their kids
Aren't that formalities? If the reason in the second part is "because parents have a right to make that decision", then the question of whether a professional is required to make sure the mutilating is done by someone who knows his job is only a formality.
You could just as well make sure for the ejaculation example: it must be a certified fertaptizer who does it. That doesn't change anything with regard to the act.
The question is STILL the same:
Quote:
If some religious practices should be allowed, and others should not, what criteria do you use to determine one set from the other?
In other word - why SHOULD one be allowed and the other not?
JJ, you're not a dumb guy so I really dont get why is it that simple concepts are so hard for you to understand...
I am NOT discussing my logic, nor my opinions whether one or the other are positive or negative, nor am I going into the differences between a parent performing a surgical procedure on their child (which is almost never done even when the parent is a surgeon) and a parent taking the child to an actual professional....What I have said 7 times thus far is simple -
Parent doing the chopping on their own isn't legal, taking the baby to a professional is legal, that's not my opinion, nor my logic, those are simple facts JJ, that is the law in the USA, as simple as that...
Whether you like the law or not is a different issue.
As for
Quote:
Quote:
If some religious practices should be allowed, and others should not, what criteria do you use to determine one set from the other?
In other word - why SHOULD one be allowed and the other not?
This has been answered a couple of times as well.
- I dont determine what should or shouldnt be allowed, the society does, religious freedom is allowed as long as it's not going against the laws of the country.
Norms of the society are the ones determining what should or shouldn't be allowed, after all that is why religious freedoms allowed in country A aren't the same as religious freedoms allowed in country B....
That is pretty much a common sense JJ, I really don't see what is there to argue or disagree about 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 24, 2012 10:52 AM |
|
|
So the point you are making is, that the law is the law, no matter what it's based on, how old and silly it may be or how much you could say to it?
So if we would start this discussion about why there is the Death Penalty for this offense, but not for that, your point was, no matter, law is this way, not the other, nothing to discuss?
And when ONE law says this, for example, you must not do something, and another allows that under certain conditions, your answer to the question why, if specifically X is generally forbidden, but allowed under condition Z, Y is NOT allowed under the same condition Z, your answer is a shrug and "that's the law"?
I wonder, why you are even posting here?
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 24, 2012 11:54 AM |
|
Edited by Smithey at 12:09, 24 Jan 2012.
|
Quote:
So the point you are making is, that the law is the law, no matter what it's based on, how old and silly it may be or how much you could say to it?
So if we would start this discussion about why there is the Death Penalty for this offense, but not for that, your point was, no matter, law is this way, not the other, nothing to discuss?
Nope, the points were
- Religious freedoms aren't above the law.
- Laws are determined by the norms of the society, the same society that doesn't find circumcision as old and silly yet does find burning witches as old and silly unlike 300 years ago.
Laws usually reflect the norms of the society.
Quote:
And when ONE law says this, for example, you must not do something, and another allows that under certain conditions, your answer to the question why, if specifically X is generally forbidden, but allowed under condition Z, Y is NOT allowed under the same condition Z, your answer is a shrug and "that's the law"?
But that is not true JJ, at least not in the USA, law doesnt allow you to break the law under "certain conditions", I know of many christains who have had their sons circumcised and that had nothing to do with religion obviouslyf so it's not like only muslims and jews are allowed to do that...
Parents "own" their kids, if you have 2 kids and one needs a kidney you can take your other kid's kidney, in a similar manner you take your kid to a dentist to remove his wisdom tooth, circumcision falls under the same category - "parents are allowed to make decisions for their kids"
Now if you really think that cutting your kid open and taking the kidney out yourself/punching your kid's teeth out/taking a knife and chopping chunks off his penis are the same cases as those listed above... Well, in that case I suggest you ask yourself the question - why are you even posting here ?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 24, 2012 12:08 PM |
|
|
is circumsation a norm in the US?
I have never seen a real circumized kid here
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 24, 2012 12:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But that is not true JJ, at least not in the USA, law doesnt allow you to break the law under "certain conditions", I know of many christains who have had their sons circumcised and that had nothing to do with religion obviouslyf so it's not like only muslims and jews are allowed to do that...
Bloody hell, you are right - and I didn't even know it!
Wiki says this:
Quote:
Infant circumcision was taken up in the United States, Australia and the English-speaking parts of Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom. There are several hypotheses to explain why infant circumcision was accepted in the United States about the year 1900. The germ theory of disease elicited an image of the human body as a conveyance for many dangerous germs, making the public "germ phobic" and suspicious of dirt and bodily secretions. The penis became "dirty" by association with its function, and from this premise circumcision was seen as preventative medicine to be practised universally. In the view of many practitioners at the time, circumcision was a method of treating and preventing masturbation. Aggleton wrote that John Harvey Kellogg viewed male circumcision in this way, and further "advocated an unashamedly punitive approach." Circumcision was also said to protect against syphilis, phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, and "excessive venery" (which was believed to produceparalysis). Gollaher states that physicians advocating circumcision in the late nineteenth century expected public scepticism, and refined their arguments to overcome it.
So it's even WORSE! They allow parents to mutilate the penisses of their children for basically comparable reasons than female genitals are mutilated in Africa and elsewhere!
That's barbaric!
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted January 24, 2012 01:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
is circumsation a norm in the US?
I have never seen a real circumized kid here
Back in the day, some insane priest said: "You know, if you circumize the kid, he will masturabate a lot less because it is a lot less pleasant."
And that started it. I don't know how many generations it has affected, but the priest was also wrong too. but it resulted in a lot of circumization.
Well, or so I heard the story was told.
____________
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted January 24, 2012 02:06 PM |
|
Edited by Adrius at 14:09, 24 Jan 2012.
|
Quote:
Parents "own" their kids, if you have 2 kids and one needs a kidney you can take your other kid's kidney, in a similar manner you take your kid to a dentist to remove his wisdom tooth, circumcision falls under the same category - "parents are allowed to make decisions for their kids"
Yeah, except that I've never heard of a case where a foreskin was removed from a child in order to save his brother.
Wisdom teeth are removed cuz they fail hard and hurt many times. Foreskin can be removed for health benefits, if a person is suffering from phimosis or a similar problem.
I have no problem supporting medical operations where the health benefits for the child is supported by evidence. Cultural circumcision is not, however.
Would you support a pair of parents who wish to remove their child's teeth and replace them with metallic versions? I mean, the health benefit is obvious: his teeth won't wither down and he won't have to brush his teeth, only the gingiva.
I wouldn't, cuz it would be painful (or risky, if anathesia was used) and the benefits can be easily mimiced by simply teaching the kid to brush his teeth. Same thing with circumcision and soap.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 24, 2012 03:43 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 15:47, 24 Jan 2012.
|
Smithey, you're fixated on what is or is not legal. But it's really beside the point. The question of morality and ethics has nothing whatsoever to do with what is or is not allowed under current statutes.
Regarding compulsory organ donation by children (actually, it's organ harvesting, not organ donation, since the child doesn't have a choice):
It's actually illegal in several European countries, and though legal in others, happens rarely. Organ harvesting of living children is legal in the US, but it happens rarely, and frequency is decreasing due to an increasing perception by the medical community that such practices are unethical (regardless of legality) and because there is a belief that compulsory organ donation damages the image of organ donation in general.
See, e.g., Olbrich, Mary E., et al. "Children as living organ donors: current views and practice in the US." Curr. Opin. Organ Transpl. 2010, 15, 241-244.
An article that touches upon a siimilar issue - harvesting organs from dying infants - that is free access can be found here.
Long and short: in such complex moral/ethical issues, pointing toward the law and saying, "see, it's legal" doesn't really solve anything. Lots of things have been legal over the years. Allowing laws to frame what one thinks is ethical or moral is putting the cart before the horse IMO.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 24, 2012 07:47 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 19:51, 24 Jan 2012.
|
Quote:
What some people want Jews to do is bow to them and worship them instead of doing what they believe God wants them to do.
No, what some people want Jews to do is stop cutting their children's penises without asking them.
It's impossible that you're so oblivious of how much you're skipping people's points. You've got to be doing this on purpose, you clever fiend. But your stubbornness won't get us off your back this time.
Mostly everything concerning the health benefits of circumcision can be done efficiently either by hygiene (various infections), using condoms (transmission of STDs) or is simply plain unethical (I've seen talk of fewer "erection problems" during puberty. What century did those "experts" come from? You get erections during puberty. That's a natural thing. A part of growing up. Less erections mean something is wrong - in this case, a lessened sexual feeling, as I explained several times. The guy is bragging about crippling one of the best things about being a man, and has managed to convince you it's a medical benefit). So what's left? Tight foreskin problems? Wouldn't it be better to, since only a tiny percentage of people suffer from that, they take care of it if it happens, and not by just cutting it off when nothing's wrong with it?
The physical disadvantages, however, as opposed to the arbitrary (at best) medical advantages, are very clear. You can say it's not "TOO crippling" or it "doesn't cause TOO much harm" (and I'm surprised you support our mutual good friend the Government deciding how much harm is alright and how much is not), but why would a man be caused less sexual enjoyment if he doesn't have to be? Is that what freedom is about? Allowing people to cut baby penises?
Another thing, and please pay special attention to this one, is that the ancient Assyrians masturbated on their children in belief that they would be stronger by it. If there were Assyrians today in America, why wouldn't it be alright if they honoured their 4000 years old tradition? We're not talking about the Carthaginian custom of child sacrifice. We're talking masturbating onto a baby. No penetration, no pain at all (without anesthetics, as opposed to circumcision), no trace left on the child at all.
Tolerance is not a good thing if what's tolerated is unnecessary physical harm (at whatever level) and the breaking of basic human rights - and yes, every man has rights that no one, not even his parents, should be allowed to break - such as every man's right to decide what to do with his penis. You will ignore this and repeat a bit louder that it's about the parents' religious freedom, but you must take the child's rights into the equation in order not to be a hypocrite and you know that. You forget that religious freedom consists of two things - freedom of religion and freedom from religion (in this case, a certain bad remaining bit from an ancient time, tied to a positive, harmless and beautiful ancient religion that is Judaism).
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted January 24, 2012 08:18 PM |
|
|
Very well said, Baklava 
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 24, 2012 09:14 PM |
|
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted January 24, 2012 10:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
is circumsation a norm in the US?
I have never seen a real circumized kid here
It's incredibly rare over here. "Preventive" medical Circ'ing was/is only done in English-speaking countries, most African countries outside of the Bantu (Zulu) ethnic group and Polynesia/the Phillipines, most of it practiced on adults tough. Infant circ used to be practiced in the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ as well, but those ratings have shrivelled to a low, barely relevant number (in NZ, iirc, the rate is now even LOWER than is half of the european countries). I know it was done in Canada too, but I don't know the exact numbers. All I know is that they were lower than the US.
In the US however, it used to be the norm for EVERY child, but there has been a steady decline ever since the 70s. I don't know what the rates are now, but they are definitely out there somewhere.
Luckily they are declining as people are slowly coming to their senses.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 25, 2012 01:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Tolerance is not a good thing if what's tolerated is unnecessary physical harm (at whatever level) and the breaking of basic human rights - and yes, every man has rights that no one, not even his parents, should be allowed to break - such as every man's right to decide what to do with his penis. You will ignore this and repeat a bit louder that it's about the parents' religious freedom, but you must take the child's rights into the equation in order not to be a hypocrite and you know that. You forget that religious freedom consists of two things - freedom of religion and freedom from religion (in this case, a certain bad remaining bit from an ancient time, tied to a positive, harmless and beautiful ancient religion that is Judaism).
Sorry, Bak, but your side lost in the courts due the the reasons I've presented. And no, freedom OF religion IS NOT freedom FROM religion. Atheists don't have the right to drive down the streets and never see a church or church sign. Atheists don't have the right to walk through the shopping mall and never see someone wearing a religious article.
Parents make many decisions for their children. Don't like it? Tough.
No, Bak I am not a hypocrite. The hypocrites in the discussion are in my opinion those who are ok with killing unborn babies but not ok with a religious practice that removes a small patch of skin from the child. Yes, that smacks of super-duper-elitist-hypocricy to me.
Some people just won't tolerate any beliefs but their own. Rather unfortunate for them an all of us, I think.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted January 25, 2012 02:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Some people just won't tolerate any beliefs but their own.
So true.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 25, 2012 12:28 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 12:36, 25 Jan 2012.
|
I see you like to answer points indirectly, El, so let me see if I got this straight from what you said - if Assyrians were among us today, you would have no problem with allowing them and anyone else to masturbate on their children due to a religious custom?
I reached this conclusion because you
1) said you're not a hypocrite
2) explained there is no freedom from religion (including but not limited to getting your penis cut and seeing a traffic sign)
3) parents are allowed to make all sorts of decisions (such as circumcision and, therefore, because you are not a hypocrite, masturbation) for their children and, if me or you or the children don't like it, tough.
Also, I don't understand why you'd think killing unborn babies is wrong. I mean, it's a parent's decision. The Government decided it's not too much harm (and probably those courts due to which my side lost). It's usually done at a tender age so the child probably won't remember it ever being killed. And it prevents erection problems during puberty.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Nocturnal
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 25, 2012 08:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
atheists can't answer that question because they can't logically use the words "moral" and "immoral" so its a rather difficult qualifier for them
Beware people, Eloding will teach you what "logic" and "morality" means. You should get some of his wisdom.
You can't support ANYTHING in this world without mixing your religious beliefs in it. I actually started to hate OSM because of this.
Anyway, got curious in what state this thread's in now, saw Elodin's usual non-sense and going.
____________
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted January 25, 2012 09:06 PM |
|
|
OD really said everything there was to say. Seriously.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 26, 2012 12:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I see you like to answer points indirectly, El, so let me see if I got this straight from what you said - if Assyrians were among us today, you would have no problem with allowing them and anyone else to masturbate on their children due to a religious custom?
I reached this conclusion because
...because you seem to not want to understand anything I have written. This is pointless.
Here is a quote of me from the previous page.
Quote:
Certainly not all immoral acts should be illegal. However, sexual acts with children should be illegal. Ejaculation is a sexual act. Ejaculating on your child is "having sex" with your child. Having sex with a child is immoral and illegal.
The majority of the American populace find circumcision to be a perfectly moral practice, and a religious practice that should be protected by the law. The same can't be said about ejaculating on one's children.
Incidentedly, I've never read anything which stated Assyrians ejaculated on their children as you claim. I know they and other pagans did sacrifice their children to their "gods" Perhaps you could provide an appropriate link for their misdeeds.
____________
Revelation
|
| |
|
|
