Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Wait. Did this discussion turn into: "Your argument is invalid because fellatio"?
Ha.
Haha.
Ha.
Haha.
Shouldn't this just be left to the general consensus as the more who don't do it should not worry about those who do? The world knows that Jews and Muslims practice it, so restricting it does only affect them. There are doctors in the US who do not encourage it nor do it. Were is the need to make it a law?
The only ones who are complaining are those who had it done incorrectly. And even those who have not had it done will never know what a toddler experiences. That is called projecting an act as wrong without any proof.
It is not the practice itself that is wrong, if anything it is the inability of doctors to do it right.
It only affects children who are too young to determine whether they're Muslim or Jew since religion isn't a genetic condition.Shouldn't this just be left to the general consensus as the more who don't do it should not worry about those who do? The world knows that Jews and Muslims practice it, so restricting it does only affect them.
It only affects children who are too young to determine whether they're Muslim or Jew since religion isn't a genetic condition.
This. No matter what your beliefs are, you cannot impose them on your child. They only believe what you tell them, and forcing them into a strict doctrine from day one is both neglect and incredibly detrimental to the big picture of society. You end up with more conflict and more hate if more children are taught to be close-minded douchebags the moment they exit the womb.
So says German legal doctrine.All surgery is bodily harm.
The justification (see above) has do to be related in some way to the childs future well-being. Which can very well be completely immaterial and does not have to be a consideration regarding physical health.Do you think the law forbids other cosmetic surgeries on children and infants?
How does one not impose their beliefs on their children. By simply being their parents, children learn to imitate their parents actions, behaviour and viewpoints anyway without actually needing pressure from them.
My parents never really had a political conversation with me in my childhood and formative years, yet I cannot deny that part of my political beliefs stem from being raised as their child.
How is a parent teaching their child 'stealing is wrong', any less forceful than them teaching to love Jesus?
stuff
Because stealing is wrong and loving Jesus and thinking the Bible is a book of truth is a circumstantial belief at best?
And who wrote the great guidebook of morality that says stealing is wrong?
Morality, by any standard, is a human construct subjected to ever changing human conditions and context. What you deem moral might be immoral to other or immoral in a different time or even circumstance.
Take stealing for example. Is it wrong to steal from a rich and greedy person to feed the poor and starving masses, Robin Hood style?
It's impossible to not impose views on your children. Even if you could, what makes one morality not forced while another is?
What Algeroth said. Anglo-Saxons really have serious issues with sexuality and continously generate very strange ideas: from chastity devices against masturbation to pedohysteria which rivals only witch hunting and the war on drugs in its sheer madness.
Morality based upon what makes sense and is logical is much less of a negative impact on a child than morality based upon what a book tells you which comes with a "But you have to believe in a man in the sky for it to matter" clause.
If you cannot understand that, I feel no need to continue this discussion.
I beg your pardon?
We're basically of the same position here then. Reduction of circumcision to assault and assault is always wrong is an unreasonable argument. Cosmetic surgery for children basically involves a whole lot of social norms, and these social norms need to be considered when judging if a surgery is more harmful then beneficial, and that's a murky area with room for reasonable disagreement.So says German legal doctrine.
Every surgery is basically considered justified assault.
The justification (see above) has do to be related in some way to the childs future well-being. Which can very well be completely immaterial and does not have to be a consideration regarding physical health.
So having some facial disfigurement fixed would be fine. But in order to justify circumcision you have to wade pretty deep into murky considerations of social acceptance etc.
Which is - of course - exactly what defendants usually did in the (rare) court cases concerning circimcision in the past. Successfully up until now.
Of course you can see that this whole well-being business is a pretty relative matter.
It is very well possible that the court felt that the harm inflicted on a four year old is greater than the one on a newborn (due to psychological considerations). It's also quite possible that the court would have felt that the jewish customs regarding circumcision were more significant to the childs well-being than the muslim ones.
So effectively the thread title is misleading in that we absulotely don't know if the exact same court would have ruled the same way with regards to your typical jewish circumcision.
What Aronmax said. If you're going to run an argument based on what makes sense and what is logical, you're probably going to end up in a radical monist position that tells us there is no child, there is no foreskin, and any change in anything is an impossibility.Morality based upon what makes sense and is logical is much less of a negative impact on a child than morality based upon what a book tells you which comes with a "But you have to believe in a man in the sky for it to matter" clause.
If you cannot understand that, I feel no need to continue this discussion.
This thread is pretty damn disgusting.
Never understood why people considered Europe so "liberal", it always seemed much more reactionary if anything else.
What? Hit a toddler's head off a wall and it will cry. It feels pain.
Cut a grown man's foreskin off and he will cry or be in excruciating pain.
The same happens to a toddler.
Are we justifying putting babies in pain because hey, they won't remember it anyways?