USA Politics

Invader said:
You're right, the only argument is religious.  That's precisely why it shouldn't be done.  I'd say it's more the responsibility of the state to protect the child from religious parents.  It's the parent's religion in case, not the child's.  Banning circumcision would probably create more problems than it would solve, but cutting up children solely for religious reasons still irks me.
Click to expand...

No, that is why the state should be left out of it. Separation of church and state. If the state can't dictate how/what you should worship, it can't tell you what you can or cannot due because of your beliefs. Whatever your personal feelings towards religion are, people are still free to believe them and follow any rituals involving said believes.
 
Sure, people are free to believe in religion and follow any rituals involving said beliefs, but concerning themselves.  The child isn't religious, at that age no child even can be, so it's not the child following his religion.  It's the parents having a medical, irreversible operation with no medical benefits done to the child based on their beliefs, and the child (who might change religion or become an atheist, later on in life) has no say in the matter. 

And of course the state can tell you what you can not do because of your beliefs, to a certain extent; religion is not grounds for committing a crime.  For example, ritual sacrifice of animals is regulated in most countries, and IIRC banned in Sweden.  Honor killing for religious reasons is a crime in all western countries, as well as a comparable Christian equivalent: bombing abortion clinics.  If a church started selling teenagers masses of wine bottles and justified it by saying it's the blood of Christ, I think someone would intervene pretty quickly.  In general, causing harm to others for religious reasons is something the state can prevent you from doing, and that's ultimately what this is about.

But, like I said, I'm not for banning it because of practical reasons, I just think religious circumcision is rather unethical.
 
Ah, very good point. But as it's been thrown around in here that child is a dependent of said parents, supposed trusted guardians of said little dude until he becomes "of age," teaching him manners and social responsibility and of course, spirituality or lack thereof. So unfortunately it's still the parents' call.

You make a good point and I happen to agree with you once you spell it out like that. However legislating circumcision is a slippery slope. I feel bearfan's disgust towards San Francisco. First circumcisions, then happy meals, what's next? spy cams in your home?
 
Then there is this

-- Men who are circumcised are less likely to get sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and human papillomavirus, according to a study of adult African men published 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine.



though even if it were neutral (minimal risk/minimal gain (beyond the psychological gain), I really see government have no business trying to ban it.
 
While the NEJM is a very well respected journal, pretty much every major medical organization is against circumcision or on the fence.

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child." - American Academy of Pediatrics

I don't know that it should be legislated, but I don't necessarily think it should be done. Based on my own life experience AND what I have read and seen, I wouldn't allow a doctor to come with 100 feet of any male offspring's dick with a knife. And I wouldn't allow a moyl within a mile. (that's a pun.)
 
LooseCannon said:
While the NEJM is a very well respected journal, pretty much every major medical organization is against circumcision or on the fence.

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child." - American Academy of Pediatrics

I don't know that it should be legislated, but I don't necessarily think it should be done. Based on my own life experience AND what I have read and seen, I wouldn't allow a doctor to come with 100 feet of any male offspring's dick with a knife. And I wouldn't allow a moyl within a mile. (that's a pun.)
Click to expand...

Exactly, it really comes down to personal preference. I don't see the "protective" argument a good one against it. I don't walk around with an erection 24/7, so the skin that is still there works just fine, don't need any extra.

Cornfed mentioned psychological effects. Damon Wayans talks about circumcizing his kids when their older (5-6) and how they underwent a sense of loss: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2001/damon-wayans
 
Onhell said:
Ah, very good point. But as it's been thrown around in here that child is a dependent of said parents, supposed trusted guardians of said little dude until he becomes "of age," teaching him manners and social responsibility and of course, spirituality or lack thereof. So unfortunately it's still the parents' call.
Click to expand...

Where I draw the line is that circumcision is an irreversible, physical process, which is not really directly comparable to teaching manners or spirituality.  An adult can learn different manners or change religion, leave the religious organisation, etc., but he can not have his foreskin back.  On the other hand, the mental damage that a parent can cause with religion (and a load of other things related to upbringing)  to a child can also be quite severe, and circumcision is not really the biggest problem in children's upbringing (bigger problems: parents' drug abuse/alcoholism/smoking, etc.).  Like I said, it probably shouldn't be regulated, and at the very least a blanket ban on all circumcision would not be the way to do it. 

Onhell said:
First circumcisions, then happy meals, what's next? spy cams in your home?
Click to expand...

You still have hell of a lot less government regulation on, well, everything, compared to Scandinavia, and probably the rest of Europe too.  But I'll agree, downright bans are usually not the best way to go.
 
You still have hell of a lot less government regulation on, well, everything, compared to Scandinavia, and probably the rest of Europe too.  But I'll agree, downright bans are usually not the best way to go.
[/QOUTE]
I would like to keep it that way, we are moving (and have been for years) in the wrong direction.  banning medical procedures and Happy Meals is the height of stupidity.
Click to expand...
 
I have mixed feelings. I think parents shouldn't be able to make a permanent decision like that, especially if only for religious reasons. I think its bad enough when parents brainwash their kids from birth to believe in their religion, nevermind mutilating them permanently. On the other hand, I don't like the government making decisions for us.

In the end though, somebody is making the decision, either the parents or the government. Unfortunately, nobody seems to care what the kid thinks...
 
Parents "brainwash" kids on all sorts of things from a belief system to the best was to wash a car.  Someone  has to be a model that children basically follow and modifiy to their own tastes as they approach  adulthood and become more influenced by others (friends, etc) ... given a choice between a givernment agency versus a set of parents in the vast majority of cases parents win.
 
My wife and I had this conversation not that long ago.  For some strange reason she thought I was circumcized.  (I know the jokes that'll come from this...  :D).  Apparently, she was not aware of the difference so I had to tell her.  Circumcision is not a cultural thing in my heritage and I have no intention of letting anyone getting close to my baby's privates with anything sharp.  What I've heard though is that the head (of the penis) can lose sensation over time.  Less enjoyable sex.  :down:

Overall, I've heard no good reason for circumcision and plenty of bad ones.  As far as having the state dictate this issue, I'm against it.  Two wrongs don't make a right. 

The reasons for this ritual is definitely religious.  Check this out.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision.  The first paragraph is enough to scare me off. 

I've heard that foreskin can be grown back, though maybe not 100%.  See an example: http://www.circumstitions.com/Restore.html.

Anyway, the though of circumcision to me is so out of the question, and I don't think anyone I know has approached me on the subject.
 
I'd be interested to hear another European's perspective on this, since everyone but me in this discussion has been North American.  Europeans in general seem to view religious matters, state legislation and freedoms in a somewhat different perspective.  E.g. look at how religious freedom is seen in France (no religious expression allowed) vs how it's seen in the US (all religious expression allowed).
 
Invader said:
  E.g. look at how religious freedom is seen in France (no religious expression allowed) vs how it's seen in the US (all religious expression allowed).
Click to expand...

I SO want to go off on a tangent here, but suffice to say that Europe as a whole, whether it's official state policy or not, is very secular....

@GK: losing sensitivity in the penis doesn't equate less pleasurable sex. The quality of the sex is dependent on two things. First and for most the skill of the lovers and second how much they actually care for each other. IMO a more sensitive penis just means more frequent premature ejaculation... but then again that's just me.
 
Genghis Khan said:
My wife and I had this conversation not that long ago.  For some strange reason she thought I was circumcized.  (I know the jokes that'll come from this...  :D).
Click to expand...

I'm really biting my tongue here. ;)
 
Invader said:
I'd be interested to hear another European's perspective on this, since everyone but me in this discussion has been North American.  Europeans in general seem to view religious matters, state legislation and freedoms in a somewhat different perspective.  E.g. look at how religious freedom is seen in France (no religious expression allowed) vs how it's seen in the US (all religious expression allowed).
Click to expand...

Only in schools and with no real fair play; Christmas trees are still practiced. Now, about this law of the full face burqa coverage... I don't agree, but it's not supposed to be about religion: Muslim, Sikh & Jewish men, they still can wear their 'hat'.
 
Onhell said:
I SO want to go off on a tangent here, but suffice to say that Europe as a whole, whether it's official state policy or not, is very secular....

@GK: losing sensitivity in the penis doesn't equate less pleasurable sex. The quality of the sex is dependent on two things. First and for most the skill of the lovers and second how much they actually care for each other. IMO a more sensitive penis just means more frequent premature ejaculation... but then again that's just me.
Click to expand...

Skill is of course the most important thing, assuming one's Johnson functions at all.  As for premature ejaculation, that's part of the partner's skill as well.  ;)
I'm so glad you went on a tangent there.  :D

Invader said:
I'd be interested to hear another European's perspective on this, since everyone but me in this discussion has been North American.  Europeans in general seem to view religious matters, state legislation and freedoms in a somewhat different perspective.  E.g. look at how religious freedom is seen in France (no religious expression allowed) vs how it's seen in the US (all religious expression allowed).
Click to expand...

Funny but I just thought that, in the case of France or Europe in general, religion is seen as negative, hence freedom actually means "freedom from", while in USA religion is seen as positive, hence freedom actually means "freedom to".  Yes, there are exceptions, but generally that's the main view point.  Personally, I'd like to live in a less religious society, but not the statist kind of intervention. 

Perun said:
I'm really biting my tongue here. ;)
Click to expand...

OK.  :)
 
Genghis Khan said:
Personally, I'd like to live in a less religious society, but not the statist kind of intervention. 
Click to expand...

It's interesting you say that, because Finland is formally a "more religious" country than Canada, since we have a state church (which I don't belong to any more though).  Despite this, Finland's people are generally far less religious than Americans, and IIRC has a relatively large amount of atheists in comparison to most other countries, as does the rest of Scandinavia.
 
Thank you Wikileaks, for giving such an insightful show in the kitchen of world power USA. It's always good to know what's really going on.

E.g., now we know that
- the US has been spying the United Nations (even Ban Ki Moon himself)
- several Arabic(!) countries want the US to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. So it's not only Israel. This is new and very interesting. This even might have consequences, namely that Iran will be forced to act more friendly towards its neighbours.
- many more things to come. Just a fraction has been published.

The story so far, by the BBC -> click
 
My thoughts on the matter - yes, I am not surprised the USA is spying on major world officials. That is what spies do.

Arab countries want to attack Iran? Shocker! (not really)

The biggest news was that Iran has North Korean missiles that give them a far longer missile capacity than so far entertained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top