Male Genitalia Mutilation

[-ty-]

What a timing.

Again with your government..
Read my post. It was talking about private parties, not the government. Making your child do things according to your religious beliefs is enforcement and nothing. I'm not talking about something that can be considered relatively nothing, like only eating kosher food, compared to circumcision or religious tattooing.
Also what the hell are you talking about? How the hell did you get from circumcision to sunday school? Do you really like evading the subject that much?

Please do not make personal comments; The thread will be closed.

Religious freedom is a major part of this discussion. It is the balance between parental and child religious freedoms. If you do not believe that parents should force religion onto their children, then try to make a mature argument. I personally think it is a balance, it is just a matter of where do we draw the line, and why. It is not a simple question by any means.

Doctors have a personal call to make regarding the ethics of circumcision. This is the same as doctors who perform abortions and assist with prison executions. While some people, and some doctors, find those things unethical, there are just as many who hold a different view.

Yes, I agree that doctors should have some leniency to decide their own ethics, to some extent. Do you think that it is ethical for a doctor to use their own religious beliefs in order to decide whether something is ethical or not? Also, if there is an unnecessary surgery, should health insurance cover it?

I am surprised we did not circle back to the parallels of this issue and abortion until now! I am not religious, but I do think that abortion and other surgeries that affect fetus/infants against their own will should not be exercised.

 

[Mr. X]

Religious freedom is fine. Go ahead, pray in school. Wear your turban. Cover your head. We don't mind.

But once religious freedom is used to defend mutilation, murder, rape, and a entire list of crimes that have been defended by this then that is were religious freedom gets tested.

I'll just say something that i've said in almost every topic about religion. (In other forums) Lets keep religion in churches, monastary's, or were ever you pray. Other then those places, religion has no place in anything.

As my earlier post was deleted, im going to pull a part that is semirelated (And hopefully not the reason why it was deleted)

For you who love defending religious freedom no matter what it is a cover for, give us your thoughts on this story.

https://www.infoniac.com/breaking/cult-toddler-killed-because-he-wouldnt-say-amen.html

Somewhat extreme, but I consider this testing just how far you will defend your beliefs.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Religious freedom is fine. Go ahead, pray in school. Wear your turban. Cover your head. We don't mind.

But once religious freedom is used to defend mutilation, murder, rape, and a entire list of crimes that have been defended by this then that is were religious freedom gets tested.

I'll just say something that i've said in almost every topic about religion. (In other forums) Lets keep religion in churches, monastary's, or were ever you pray. Other then those places, religion has no place in anything.

As my earlier post was deleted, im going to pull a part that is semirelated (And hopefully not the reason why it was deleted)

For you who love defending religious freedom no matter what it is a cover for, give us your thoughts on this story.

https://www.infoniac.com/breaking/cult-toddler-killed-because-he-wouldnt-say-amen.html

Somewhat extreme, but I consider this testing just how far you will defend your beliefs.

Wrong! Religion is protected everywhere we go. I can say a prayer over my meal while eating out. Religion deserves protection is all aspects of life in a free society.

While some crimes are unexcuseable, circumcsion is not a crime.

Also, many doctors who choose to not perform controversial procedures undoubtedly are influenced by religion.

Regarding insurance coverage of unnecessary procedures: That is for private insurers to decide.

 

[twocows]

If the human scarafice or person being eaten consented to the activity, then yes. I feel that the right to live includes the right to end your life when you see fit.

That's the whole point. Consent. A child cannot give consent. If a parent believes his or her child should be sacrificed or raped in the name of whatever god, should we allow that? I don't think we should.

 

[-ty-]

Wrong! Religion is protected everywhere we go. I can say a prayer over my meal while eating out. Religion deserves protection is all aspects of life in a free society.

While some crimes are unexcuseable, circumcsion is not a crime.

Also, many doctors who choose to not perform controversial procedures undoubtedly are influenced by religion.

Regarding insurance coverage of unnecessary procedures: That is for private insurers to decide.

Oh I was referring to state or federally funded money like Medicaid. Should tax dollars be spent on unnecessary surgery?
Also, where do you think the line should be drawn on free exercise of religious rights, is it when it imposes on another's religious rights?
Also, it's one thing for a doctor to not operate based off religious beliefs, but what about operating purely based off religious beliefs, even if the surgery is unnecessary and puts a life at stake.

 

[Dawn]

I think the main controversy we're overlooking here is the fact that the people who believe these religious things believe them very strongly. I can't imagine how they must feel about others telling them what they can and can't do, restricting them from practicing their religion, regardless of the fact you might think there's a good reason.

The line isn't... clear.

 

[-ty-]

I think the main controversy we're overlooking here is the fact that the people who believe these religious things believe them very strongly. I can't imagine how they must feel about others telling them what they can and can't do, restricting them from practicing their religion, regardless of the fact you might think there's a good reason.

The line isn't... clear.

I really am against prohibiting someone else's religious beliefs, but I think once they impede on someone else's rights then we have a problem. You should be able to tattoo your face. you should be able to eat whatever you want. you should be able to believe in what ever you want. You should be able to slit your own throat because of your religious beliefs. (even though I really do not like the idea of it, since it may affect the people around you.)

But once your actions force another person to do something against their beliefs, or you harm someone, it is undermining someone else's religious and personal freedoms. You should not be able to coerce someone to tattoo their face. You should not slit someone's throat because of your beliefs. You should not be able to remove part of a sexual organ based on your own religious beliefs.

But that is just me. I think that the line is very hard to draw as you state.

 

[Shining Raichu]

I think the main controversy we're overlooking here is the fact that the people who believe these religious things believe them very strongly. I can't imagine how they must feel about others telling them what they can and can't do, restricting them from practicing their religion, regardless of the fact you might think there's a good reason.

The line isn't... clear.

It might feel a little something like it does when the religious tell others what we can and can't do. At least we have valid logical reasoning for our arguments toward prohibition. I'm not suggesting a 'tit for tat' argument, but if they can so successfully do it, why shouldn't we when we feel there's a misjustice?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

That's the whole point. Consent. A child cannot give consent. If a parent believes his or her child should be sacrificed or raped in the name of whatever god, should we allow that? I don't think we should.

Murder and rape are crimes. Religion cannot be used to justify crime. They are also crimes at common law and society is pretty much in consensus agreeing that they are wrong. Circumcision is a widely practiced surgical procedure in both the religious and secular fields. Only extreme left-wingers seem to be proposing it be banned.

Oh I was referring to state or federally funded money like Medicaid. Should tax dollars be spent on unnecessary surgery?
Also, where do you think the line should be drawn on free exercise of religious rights, is it when it imposes on another's religious rights?
Also, it's one thing for a doctor to not operate based off religious beliefs, but what about operating purely based off religious beliefs, even if the surgery is unnecessary and puts a life at stake.

No. Medicaid/Medicare should only provide basic coverage that only covers medical necessities. Also, government funding of a religious practice violates the Establishment Clause.

 

[Dawn]

At least we have valid logical reasoning for our arguments toward prohibition.

Excuse me what? Are you implying that religious beliefs and valid logical reasoning cannot exist together?

Also, government funding of a religious practice violates the Establishment Clause.

It technically doesn't. I'm just saying, they can fund any religious things they want as long as they do it in a fashion that does not blatantly show preference for one religion over others.

 

[Oryx]

Excuse me what? Are you implying that religious beliefs and valid logical reasoning cannot exist together?

No, he's implying that the reasoning behind getting a child circumcised is only "my religion says so". He's not saying that religious beliefs can never coexist with logical reasoning, he's just saying that there isn't a logical reason why circumcision is anything more than mutilation other than "God said it isn't".

And this isn't implying that I agree with his beliefs, but you're assuming that he's generalizing to every instance, when I believe he was just referring to this particular instance of male circumcision.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

This is case law as defined by the Bar Association.

"Case law is the reported decisions of selected appellate and other courts (called courts of first impression) which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents in a process known as stare decisis."

"Court of first impression (known as primae impressionis in Latin) is a legal case in which there is no binding authority on the matter presented. Such a case can set forth a completely original issue of law for decision by the courts. A first impression case may be a first impression in only a particular jurisdiction. In that situation, courts will look to holdings of other jurisdictions for persuasive authority."

All cases proceeded the court of first impression have followed suit with the case law. Although it is not binding it is persuasive authority, as a single case. The culmination of cases may proved to be much more persuasive. If I had my student WESTLAW during the summer, I might have more specifics to show.

Courts of first impression decisions are not binding authority, so they are not law. While they can be persuasive for use in other cases and in legislative debate, they are not binding precedent in their own right. Once that case you cited is appealed, we'll get a decision on the issue.

It technically doesn't. I'm just saying, they can fund any religious things they want as long as they do it in a fashion that does not blatantly show preference for one religion over other.

That is a theory of jurisprudence, but established case law has moved away from the nonpreferential approach in recent years.

 

[-ty-]

Courts of first impression decisions are not binding authority, so they are not law. While they can be persuasive for use in other cases and in legislative debate, they are not binding precedent in their own right. Once that case you cited is appealed, we'll get a decision on the issue.



That is a theory of jurisprudence, but established case law has moved away from the nonpreferential approach in recent years.

I understand, I was just stating that this case was case law. Persuasive authority, although not binding, is case law.

 

[twocows]

Murder and rape are crimes. Religion cannot be used to justify crime. They are also crimes at common law and society is pretty much in consensus agreeing that they are wrong. Circumcision is a widely practiced surgical procedure in both the religious and secular fields. Only extreme left-wingers seem to be proposing it be banned.

So are you saying that it shouldn't be illegal because it's not illegal?

Or are you saying that because a lot of people do it, it must be acceptable?

Also, calling your opponents "extreme left-wingers" does not make their arguments less valid.

"Religion cannot be used to justify crime." I'm trying to argue that circumcision without consent ought to be a crime. The fact that a lot of people do it to their children doesn't change anything about my argument. It's unacceptable because it removes a potentially useful part of the body without the recipient's consent. There may be those who, come adulthood, decide they want to undergo the procedure, and that's fine. However, it should not be forced upon a person. I honestly don't understand why people find the matter of choice to be so disagreeable.

And really, we don't need name-calling. I'm taking a traditionally leftist position, but I hold plenty of traditionally rightist positions as well (I firmly support second amendment rights, for instance). Using overly-broad, emotionally-charged labels in an attempt to make someone seem less credible is something that has no place in an intellectual discussion (especially since it has no effect on the validity of my arguments, it just makes people ignore them in favor of more name-calling).

 

[Black Ice]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
-United States Constitution

So you're going to let the parents exercise their religion on a baby, even if it has no significant purpose and may actually harm it (maybe, maybe not, I don't know, doesn't matter)? Even if the baby has no choice in the matter, even though it's the baby's own body? Aren't you republicans the ones trying to save babies? Or does it not matter after they're born?

I'm not even sure how much you know about circumcision, and you definitely don't have any firsthand experience of what it's like. But at least try to think about it from a male's perspective.

 

[Steven]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
-United States Constitution

I'm going to rape all the woman, then marry all of them at the same time! But if they're not a virgin I will kill them.

YAY!

Wait..all those are illegal..but the Bible says it's okay! ;o;

I don't see why we should respect cutting off parts of the body in the name of religion. What about the religions that ban circumcision?

 

[Deleted member 12729]

I don't think my post was rude at all; it just outlined (albeit in a very simple manner) how it's strange that a certain someone should feel so entitled to enforce views on something exclusive to males while at the same time she claims to be against any kind of unfair indoctrination, or rather, shoving opinions 'down kids' throats'.

 

[-ty-]

I don't think my post was rude at all; it just outlined (albeit in a very simple manner) how it's strange that a certain someone should feel so entitled to enforce views on something exclusive to males while at the same time she claims to be against any kind of unfair indoctrination, or rather, shoving opinions 'down kids' throats'.

Just try not making the comments too personal. If you have a problem with a moderators actions, please refrain from posting messages on this thread. Instead, it is more appropriate to PM a moderator. With that being said, I think issues of this nature should not be restricted one gender's concern. If this were female genital mutilation, I would not want to be censored because I am not female. I am sure that your opinions are great, but if you focus all of your energy into an individual rather than the topic, people may not listen to your ideas.

 

[Myles]

There may be those who, come adulthood, decide they want to undergo the procedure, and that's fine. However, it should not be forced upon a person. I honestly don't understand why people find the matter of choice to be so disagreeable.

The problem here is that the procedure is riskier the older the person is. By the time they reach adulthood, it's pretty dangerous.

 

[Oryx]

The problem here is that the procedure is riskier the older the person is. By the time they reach adulthood, it's pretty dangerous.

Could you back that up please? Not trying to be rude or anything, just seems like if that's true (it very well could be, I don't regularly research adult circumcision) there should be some good research you can use to back it up.

I don't think that adulthood is the right time to start giving the choice anyway. Although when you're young, you may be influenced by your parents, you also can make your own decisions. I believe at about 10-12 or so, if the family believes strongly in their religious beliefs, they should be able to sit the child down and talk to them about the procedure, and let them make the decision on their own. At that age, although the kid may not be a fully grown adult, he probably knows enough about his religion to know whether or not he wants to take that step.

This reminds me of my complaint with my school, honestly. It's a Catholic school, and on Fridays during Lent they don't serve meat. I'm not Catholic and I think they should serve it, but it has nothing to do with my desire to eat meat (omg on Fridays they have the best vegetables and seafood ever but off-topic). I feel like the sacrifice that the Catholics are asked to make is cheapened by the fact that they don't have a choice in the matter, even if they wanted to eat meat they couldn't. I don't believe it's really a sacrifice on the part of the student if they didn't have the option to eat meat in the first place.

This relates to this discussion because even religiously, honestly, there's no religious law that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong and consider the rest of this point moot) saying that circumcision has to be performed as a baby. One of the biggest reasons I believe that they do it as a child is because they don't believe most men in the religion will want to when they get older and realize what it entails, so they do it before the baby is old enough to object to the procedure. Therefore, that makes the sacrifice pointless honestly. The man didn't sacrifice that because he wanted to for his religion; he did it because his parents made a decision as a baby. It's not a choice for him to make this sacrifice at all.

Does anyone know the statistics of men who are born Jewish and grow up and decide not to follow that religion anymore? In the past circumcision made sense and was generally not given much thought because for the most part religion ran in the family - you were born Christian, your kids will be born Christian, no choice about it. But now that religion has become more choice-oriented, many men that have no desire to remain Jewish have this pushed on them before they have the chance to say no. It's not the same as "my parents took me to mass and got me baptized as a baby" - no baptism leaves you with scars and missing body parts for the rest of your life.