Freed of religion and freedom from religion are two sides of the same coin. If people want to circumcise in the name of their god then the State needs to leave them alone to do so.
And if they want to sacrifice humans (even of their own religion)?
To be short: there is some border where you allow people to do their thing. But destructing a part of your child’s body without medical reason is for me on the wrong side of the border.
Freed of religion and freedom from religion are two sides of the same coin. If people want to circumcise in the name of their god then the State needs to leave them alone to do so.
`
If you were talking about adults choosing for themselves to get circumcized, I’d agree with you. But this involves the choice being taken away from the person who owns the organ in question.
Couldn’t disagree with you more Mid, a baby is a human born with specific rights. They aren’t chattel to be treated as the parents wish. Even spanking today is considered A barbaric practice and labeled child abuse. IMO the obligation of parents is to train a child to be a responsible adult and to live the most fulfilling life possible. Beyond that it’s up to the child. Chopping off pieces of a child’s body for religious purposes is, as i’ve stated before, barbaric.
Couldn’t disagree with you more Mid, a baby is a human born with specific rights. They aren’t chattel to be treated as the parents wish. Even spanking today is considered A barbaric practice and labeled child abuse. IMO the obligation of parents is to train a child to be a responsible adult and to live the most fulfilling life possible. Beyond that it’s up to the child. Chopping off pieces of a child’s body for religious purposes is, as i’ve stated before, barbaric.
A baby may be born with theoretical rights, but outside of that, forget it. The authorities may attempt to force their will on parents at their own peril, and that’s how it should be. The law of the land can never touch these personal areas with out something bad happening.
Spanking (and worse) should be brought back in full force IMO.
The authorities may attempt to force their will on parents at their own peril, and that’s how it should be. The law of the land can never touch these personal areas with out something bad happening.
`
‘Something bad’ is already happening, namely the non-consentual violation of a helpless/voiceless person every time someone slices a bit of nerve-laden tissue from the most sexually sensitive area of his body before he’s of age to even comprehend what’s being done to him.
Why you choose to ‘champion’ such a violation is a little mind-boggling, imo.
A baby may be born with theoretical rights, but outside of that, forget it. The authorities may attempt to force their will on parents at their own peril, and that’s how it should be. The law of the land can never touch these personal areas with out something bad happening.
Spanking (and worse) should be brought back in full force IMO.
Wow, I am not sure I have ever disagreed with a statement on this forum more than this one. Children once born certainly don’t have the full right of self determination that adults do because they are not yet mature enough to make decisions and consent to things they cant understand but they absolutely do have a right to be protected from bodily harm. Their welfare is entrusted to their parents but they are not property to be owned and done with as the parents please.
I’ve raised three children to adulthood and they have turned out extremely well. Neither I nor my wife ever laid a hand on them in anger. Discipline does not require physical violence. Spanking is a mark of weak parenting. If your children respect you the fear of losing that respect and disappointing you is far more persuasive than a smack to their bottom. The government does and should come between a child and any parent who thinks they have a right to strike them.
A baby may be born with theoretical rights, but outside of that, forget it. The authorities may attempt to force their will on parents at their own peril, and that’s how it should be. The law of the land can never touch these personal areas with out something bad happening.
Spanking (and worse) should be brought back in full force IMO.
Wow, I am not sure I have ever disagreed with a statement on this forum more than this one. Children once born certainly don’t have the full right of self determination that adults do because they are not yet mature enough to make decisions and consent to things they cant understand but they absolutely do have a right to be protected from bodily harm. Their welfare is entrusted to their parents but they are not property to be owned and done with as the parents please.
I’ve raised three children to adulthood and they have turned out extremely well. Neither I nor my wife ever laid a hand on them in anger. Discipline does not require physical violence. Spanking is a mark of weak parenting. If your children respect you the fear of losing that respect and disappointing you is far more persuasive than a smack to their bottom. The government does and should come between a child and any parent who thinks they have a right to strike them.
Some kids are better than others by nature, they don’t need to be disciplined. Others require something more harsh. Not all children are capable of respecting their parents - even if the parents are good at parenting.
I can’t agree that babies are somehow not “property”. They do have a right to not be injured, but in the case of circumcision, that has never been shown to cause any pathology. Without any religious motivation, it’s essentially a form of body modification, and the government doesn’t have any ethical leverage to say “you can’t do that”.
The authorities may attempt to force their will on parents at their own peril, and that’s how it should be. The law of the land can never touch these personal areas with out something bad happening.
`
‘Something bad’ is already happening, namely the non-consentual violation of a helpless/voiceless person every time someone slices a bit of nerve-laden tissue from the most sexually sensitive area of his body before he’s of age to even comprehend what’s being done to him.
Why you choose to ‘champion’ such a violation is a little mind-boggling, imo.
`
It’s not that bad, no boy has ever suffered permanent trauma from a circumcision done right.
Like bloody hell they don’t. Basic human rights are not conditional upon age. They apply to everybody be they 1 second old or 1 millenium old. Your body is your’s. It is the place of nobody to tell you what to do with it. If YOu make the choice to mutilate your own for whatever reason, that’s your call to make. It’s NOT your place to make that call for somebody else, even if s/he’s your own child.
Those are all extremely trivial sites with no scientifically substantial info.
Unless they had botched circumcisions a la David Reimer, the men therein are psychologically inferior masochists who simply like to imagine themselves as victimised. If it wasn’t their lost foreskins, it would be their front tooth that fell out at ten.
Mid you really need to do your research first and think about what youre saying. The statement “no boy has ever suffered permanent trauma from a circumcision done right.” is true in that circumcisions are not meant to cause harm but the world is not a perfect place and EVERY surgical procedure has risks even in the most competent experienced hands. Your implication is that complications only occur when someone is incompetent or sloppy. Its a common lay opinion but its wrong. Surgery is generally safe but every human being is different and every situation presents unknown variables. Even the best surgeons have complications even when they are doing their utmost to avoid them. We also live in an imperfect world where not every surgeon is the best or having their best day so in the real world there will always be some rate of complications. Take a look at this article which is from a urologic journal and summarizes real world experience with circumcision complication rates.
If we are going to circumcise children there has to be adequate medical evidence that the benefits outweigh the risk. It should not be left to a parents whim. They do NOT have a right to put their children at risk of physical injury to satisfy their religious or personal beliefs. Children are not property. Would you let parents do an elective appendectomy just because their religion dictated it? You claim its a form a “body modification” and the government has no right to control that. By your logic a parent may then modify a childs body in any any they want and for any reason. So if a parent chose to castrate their son or have their tongue split or have horns created ( as some people do to “modify” their bodies) then thats OK? The fact is that there is no emergent need to do this sort of thing and since the body belongs to the child rather than the parent I can see no logical argument for allowing parents to do this to children. It makes far more sense to allow the child to decide when he is at the age of consent? What logical argument is there to oppose that approach?
You are right that no two children are alike and some require more parenting than others but more should mean better not more violent. Corporal punishment is nearly always the result of a parent who is ill prepared to deal with child rearing and acts out in the easiest way available. Striking a child will only make them fear you, not respect you. Fear is easy to instill. Mutual respect takes work and restraint but in the end results in a far healthier relationship.
I can understand a parent acting out in a moment of weakness but justifying it is indefensible. Parents who can’t raise their children without striking them need to seek help from professionals who can help them work out a better solution.
