Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
But the thing is, I'm just reading a forum where circumcised man are complaining about lack of sensation during sex. Why is it right for parents to make this decision for their sons? And why then, is it not right (i.e. specifically
forbidden in some countries) to perform a related procedure on females |
A brief goooooooogle reveals plenty of anecdotal evidence that the reduced sensation leads to better sex and at least one clinical study that backs that view. If you're attempting to form an argument against parental decisions that reduce their children's quality of life, then circumcision is not the best example to start with. As I said earlier, you would find a lot more to go on were you to concentrate on parents that exercise their right to feed their kids chips and chocolate 7 days a week.
Nevertheless, it is right for parents to make those decisions for their sons because they are the parents. The only alternative that I can see - the State - has ramifications that leave me deeply uncomfortable.
On the subject of female circumcision, it is expressly forbidden in Judaism and in Islam is variously discouraged if not outright condemned depending on which expression of that religion you look to.
I see no logical requirement for the allowance of male circumcision to therefore excuse female circumcision, the chopping off of middle fingers or human sacrifice. To suggest that the one mandates the rest is absurd and somewhat pointless. Rather than asking what must be permitted in the name of religion, it is a lot more useful to look at what religions actually require in the UK and take it from there.
Quote:
|
The reality is that we are allowing some of these rituals for no reason other than that we always have, and if someone were to invent it now, we would call it mutilation, because that's what it is: mutilation of a child that has not not consented. Now, i'm not calling for a ban, because a ban would be unworkable and only cause resentment, but I do think it's right people think about what it means for a parent to decide it's alright to remove part of a boy's anatomy.
|
Again, as an atheist you're having difficulty getting into a religious mindset. Religious practices are not just a list of things you decide to do. They are part of a way of life that helps define your relationship with God. And it is a fact of history that new religious practices that set the believers apart from wider society do result in conflict. Early Christians were thrown to the lions because their practices were at odds with Roman law (refusing to worship the emperor, mostly).
You're almost certainly right, if we lived in a sterile society where only what is scientifically valid and medically necessary may be done, then someone attempting to start a religious practice like circumcision would most likely be prevented from doing so. If circumcision were an absolute requirement of that religion, then the religion would either die out or go underground. Christianity went underground, literally, in 1st century Rome. Today, the version of Roman society that ruled Christian beliefs illegal has gone, and from a certain point of view Christianity has made Rome its capital city.
The reason I mention all this is to reinforce the point I made earlier. You're attempting to set your own very specific, early 21st century secular Western cultural mores against a practice that has survived around the world for millennia. When you say, "I do think it's right people think about what it means for a parent to decide it's alright to remove part of a boy's anatomy," set against all the countless millions of people who have happily circumcised their boys as part of their religion, even under persecution, your demand for them to see things in your own terms, which are so narrow in both time and in culture, is just a bit small-minded.
---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:22 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
Saying it shouldn't be banned or even criticised because it's a religious practice is EXACTLY the same as saying it should be allowed because it's a religious practice. You have been the one complaining when others consider it in principle to be 'barbaric'.
|
You're setting up a straw man ... if you would be so good as to indicate that you understand what I mean by that, then I'll happily discuss it further with you. Otherwise, please forgive me if I basically can't be bothered to re-state everything you couldn't be bothered to understand the first time round ...