[DEFEATED] Repeal GAR #141- Permit Male Circumcision

[Imperializt Russia]

Anti-religious bigotry hiding behind the flimsy facade of "children's rights". This has failed before, and we shall work to see that it fails again.

The "anti-religious" aspect (I'm not even going to touch on "bigotry") is tenuous, at best.
Circumcision as a rite of passage in Judaism was once practised in Christianity, until the practice was renounced centuries ago.
It was replaced with baptism.

[Rotwood]

Anti-religious bigotry hiding behind the flimsy facade of "children's rights". This has failed before, and we shall work to see that it fails again.

Anti-religious? Most of the sentiment I've seen here is that this has nothing to do with religious beliefs, but more that there should be the right to choice. Most religious beliefs have circumcision happen later on, not at birth, as a rite of passage

Edit: Sorry, screwed up a bit there. There are some which do it at birth or not long after, which we do stand against as we believe the child has a choice in both his religious beliefs and when it comes to this procedure, and it should be held off until they can chose

[Christian Democrats]

Anti-religious bigotry hiding behind the flimsy facade of "children's rights". This has failed before, and we shall work to see that it fails again.

The "anti-religious" aspect (I'm not even going to touch on "bigotry") is tenuous, at best.
Circumcision as a rite of passage in Judaism was once practised in Christianity, until the practice was renounced centuries ago.
It was replaced with baptism.

Baptism didn't replace circumcision, and circumcision was removed at the Council of Jerusalem in AD 50.

The anti-religiousness in this proposal is the implicit assertion that it is wrong to initiate an infant into a religious community.

[Bodobol]

The "anti-religious" aspect (I'm not even going to touch on "bigotry") is tenuous, at best.
Circumcision as a rite of passage in Judaism was once practised in Christianity, until the practice was renounced centuries ago.
It was replaced with baptism.

Baptism didn't replace circumcision, and circumcision was removed at the Council of Jerusalem in AD 50.

The anti-religiousness in this proposal is the implicit assertion that it is wrong to initiate an infant into a religious community.

It's against the religious practice of forcing an infant into a religion, yes, but it's not anti-religious in general. When I get around to drafting my replacement, assuming by some stroke of luck this passes, it will allow for people to choose for themselves to get circumcised.

[Christian Democrats]

It's against the religious practice of forcing an infant into a religion, yes, but it's not anti-religious in general.

That position is anti-religious. Raising one's child in one's own religion is no different from teaching the child one's own beliefs and cultural practices.

[Bodobol]

It's against the religious practice of forcing an infant into a religion, yes, but it's not anti-religious in general.

That position is anti-religious. Raising one's child in one's own religion is no different from teaching the child one's own beliefs and cultural practices.

It's indoctrination; forcing a child to hold a certain belief should not be acceptable, and it definitely should not be acceptable to harm an infant's genitals in the name of religion.

[Christian Democrats]

That position is anti-religious. Raising one's child in one's own religion is no different from teaching the child one's own beliefs and cultural practices.

It's indoctrination; forcing a child to hold a certain belief should not be acceptable

Then how is a child supposed to learn anything? All early learning is "indoctrination."

Do not bite.
Do not hit other children.
Do not put that in your mouth.

and it definitely should not be acceptable to harm an infant's genitals in the name of religion.

Most people I know who practice circumcision -- I know only a few Jews -- do so for its medical benefits.

[Bodobol]

It's indoctrination; forcing a child to hold a certain belief should not be acceptable

Then how is a child supposed to learn anything? All early learning is "indoctrination."

Do not bite.
Do not hit other children.
Do not put that in your mouth.

and it definitely should not be acceptable to harm an infant's genitals in the name of religion.

Most people I know who practice circumcision -- I know only a few Jews -- do so for its medical benefits.

'Do not bite, do not hit', is not quite the same as 'believe in this deity or spend an eternity burning' IMO.

If it's for the medical purposes then it's not as bad, but the benefits aren't entirely proven and there's still a small risk of complications.

[Rotwood]

It's indoctrination; forcing a child to hold a certain belief should not be acceptable

Then how is a child supposed to learn anything? All early learning is "indoctrination."

Do not bite.
Do not hit other children.
Do not put that in your mouth.

and it definitely should not be acceptable to harm an infant's genitals in the name of religion.

Most people I know who practice circumcision -- I know only a few Jews -- do so for its medical benefits.

A lot of those "medical benefits" can be replaced with information (i.e. safe sex) and hygiene.

OOC: hell, from my view, a lot of it being a religious practice is because of the lack of the hygiene we have today back in those times.

[Bodobol]

Then how is a child supposed to learn anything? All early learning is "indoctrination."

Do not bite.
Do not hit other children.
Do not put that in your mouth.


Most people I know who practice circumcision -- I know only a few Jews -- do so for its medical benefits.

A lot of those "medical benefits" can be replaced with information (i.e. safe sex) and hygiene.

OOC: hell, from my view, a lot of it being a religious practice is because of the lack of the hygiene we have today back in those times.

That too.

[Christian Democrats]

Then how is a child supposed to learn anything? All early learning is "indoctrination."

Do not bite.
Do not hit other children.
Do not put that in your mouth.


Most people I know who practice circumcision -- I know only a few Jews -- do so for its medical benefits.

'Do not bite, do not hit', is not quite the same as 'believe in this deity or spend an eternity burning' IMO.

If it's for the medical purposes then it's not as bad, but the benefits aren't entirely proven and there's still a small risk of complications.

Do you want me to give you examples of other early forms of "indoctrination"? Obey the law. Wear these sorts of clothes. Do not touch yourself there. Listen to the teacher.

There is a risk of complications with anything, including vaccinations, which cause a small number of infant deaths each year.

[Bodobol]

'Do not bite, do not hit', is not quite the same as 'believe in this deity or spend an eternity burning' IMO.

If it's for the medical purposes then it's not as bad, but the benefits aren't entirely proven and there's still a small risk of complications.

Do you want me to give you examples of other early forms of "indoctrination"? Obey the law. Wear these sorts of clothes. Do not touch yourself there. Listen to the teacher.

There is a risk of complications with anything, including vaccinations, which cause a small number of infant deaths each year.

Obey the law - Okay to tell children to do, since it's been proven there's fairly negative consequences associated with not obeying the law. And it's good for the general welfare of the self and society (in most cases).

Wear these sorts of clothes - If it's likely to be a major distraction or is inappropriate in nature, fine, whatever. I don't think it should go much further than that, though.

Do not touch yourself there - Why? If it's in public, well yeah, don't do it because it's a distraction and people really don't want to see children in public touching themselves, but if it's in private then who cares?

Listen to the teacher - Pretty much the same as obeying the law, just on a smaller scale.

Believe in [insert deity here], follow [insert religion here], don't question said religion - Not really any bad effects associated with not following a religion (outside of ridicule from parents, and possibly others), damages child's capacity to think for his or herself, etc. So no, not the same.

EDIT: The complication rates vary. Here, for example, the complication rate was approximately 20 percent. So it's not always a small risk.

[Rotwood]

'Do not bite, do not hit', is not quite the same as 'believe in this deity or spend an eternity burning' IMO.

If it's for the medical purposes then it's not as bad, but the benefits aren't entirely proven and there's still a small risk of complications.

Do you want me to give you examples of other early forms of "indoctrination"? Obey the law. Wear these sorts of clothes. Do not touch yourself there. Listen to the teacher.

There is a risk of complications with anything, including vaccinations, which cause a small number of infant deaths each year.

Indoctrination, in which a child could eventually decide to ignore or follow, their choice, is not the same as an irreversible procedure they have no control over.

[Christian Democrats]

Believe in [insert deity here], follow [insert religion here], don't question said religion

It's just the same as telling one's children to follow the law or to adhere to the society's gender roles and other customs.

Not really any bad effects associated with not following a religion (outside of ridicule from parents, and possibly others), damages child's capacity to think for his or herself, etc. So no, not the same.

Now, you're trying to impose your views on other people's children.

You said that it's fine to tell children to follow the law because there are negative consequences for not doing so. That same exact argument is applicable to religious beliefs.

[Bodobol]

Believe in [insert deity here], follow [insert religion here], don't question said religion

It's just the same as telling one's children to follow the law or to adhere to the society's gender roles and other customs.

Not really any bad effects associated with not following a religion (outside of ridicule from parents, and possibly others), damages child's capacity to think for his or herself, etc. So no, not the same.

Now, you're trying to impose your views on other people's children.

You said that it's fine to tell children to follow the law because there are negative consequences for not doing so. That same exact argument is applicable to religious beliefs.

When there is empirical proof that not believing in [religion] results in [divine punishment], then it's the same as telling them to follow the law. Until then, they're different things entirely.

[Chester Pearson]

Not really any bad effects associated with not following a religion (outside of ridicule from parents, and possibly others), damages child's capacity to think for his or herself, etc. So no, not the same.

Now, you're trying to impose your views on other people's children.

Right..... Because you have NEVER tried to do that yourself?

As it looks, I am opposed to this anyway. Why do we need to unnecessarily stir up this kettle of shit once again? It does the job, so leave it alone....

[Christian Democrats]

It's just the same as telling one's children to follow the law or to adhere to the society's gender roles and other customs.


Now, you're trying to impose your views on other people's children.

You said that it's fine to tell children to follow the law because there are negative consequences for not doing so. That same exact argument is applicable to religious beliefs.

When there is empirical proof that not believing in [religion] results in [divine punishment], then it's the same as telling them to follow the law. Until then, they're different things entirely.

Now, you're trying to impose your empiricism on other people and their children.

"Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

[Bodobol]

When there is empirical proof that not believing in [religion] results in [divine punishment], then it's the same as telling them to follow the law. Until then, they're different things entirely.

Now, you're trying to impose your empiricism on other people and their children.

"Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

You're right, that is empiricism. But if you're going to cut off the tip of a baby's penis for religious reasons, said religion should at least be verified as fact first before it's okay to do that.

[Christian Democrats]

Now, you're trying to impose your empiricism on other people and their children.

"Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

You're right, that is empiricism. But if you're going to cut off the tip of a baby's penis for religious reasons, said religion should at least be verified as fact first before it's okay to do that.

Now, you're moving the goalposts. I've been attacking your assertion that it is wrong to choose a religion (not necessarily Judaism) for an infant.

Furthermore, the mainstream position is that the medical benefits of infant male circumcision outweigh the risks of the procedure.

[Bodobol]

You're right, that is empiricism. But if you're going to cut off the tip of a baby's penis for religious reasons, said religion should at least be verified as fact first before it's okay to do that.

Now, you're moving the goalposts. I've been attacking your assertion that it is wrong to choose a religion (not necessarily Judaism) for an infant.

Furthermore, the mainstream position is that the medical benefits of infant male circumcision outweigh the risks of the procedure.

Whoops, sorry. I misunderstood your post. I think it should be wrong to force an infant into a way of life that's religion-centric, symbolized by circumcision, when said religion is completely unproven.

For one, as Rotwood has repeatedly said, many of the health risks associated with not getting circumcised can be overcome by hygienic habits, and that may be locally true, but in less developed nations the risk of complications may outweigh the benefits.

[Christian Democrats]

For one, as Rotwood has repeatedly said, many of the health risks associated with not getting circumcised can be overcome by hygienic habits, and that may be locally true, but in less developed nations the risk of complications may outweigh the benefits.

One could make the same argument against vaccinations.

"Vaccinations carry such and such risks, and not getting vaccinated can be overcome with good hygiene and the avoidance of contact with sick people."

[Bodobol]

For one, as Rotwood has repeatedly said, many of the health risks associated with not getting circumcised can be overcome by hygienic habits, and that may be locally true, but in less developed nations the risk of complications may outweigh the benefits.

One could make the same argument against vaccinations.

"Vaccinations carry such and such risks, and not getting vaccinated can be overcome with good hygiene and the avoidance of contact with sick people."

Vaccinations do not provide lifelong physical effects and are not a form of indoctrinating children into a specific way of life.

[Christian Democrats]

One could make the same argument against vaccinations.

"Vaccinations carry such and such risks, and not getting vaccinated can be overcome with good hygiene and the avoidance of contact with sick people."

Vaccinations do not provide lifelong physical effects and are not a form of indoctrinating children into a specific way of life.

First, a vaccination permanently alters one's immune system.

Second, circumcision is not usually performed for religious reasons.

Third, as I have countered above, all early forms of learning are "indoctrination." There is nothing wrong with "indoctrination" in this sense. To indoctrinate is "to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). When a person teaches his child the basic moral code of society, norms or cultural expectations, or even basic mathematics, he is "indoctrinating" him into a certain system of thinking.

[The Republic of Lanos]

Anti-religious bigotry hiding behind the flimsy facade of "children's rights". This has failed before, and we shall work to see that it fails again.

Let us hope so.

[Mosktopia]

Vaccinations do not provide lifelong physical effects and are not a form of indoctrinating children into a specific way of life.

First, a vaccination permanently alters one's immune system.

Second, circumcision is not usually performed for religious reasons.

Third, as I have countered above, all early forms of learning are "indoctrination." There is nothing wrong with "indoctrination" in this sense. To indoctrinate is "to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). When a person teaches his child the basic moral code of society, norms or cultural expectations, or even basic mathematics, he is "indoctrinating" him into a certain system of thinking.

I think the "circumcision is like vaccination" comparison is obviously a false comparison.

I'm also not interested in repealing PMC. It seems to me that those who want to repeal PMC also want a ban on circumcision (in one form or another). I wasn't around when PMC was enacted, but I can only imagine that we passed this pure blocker because of repeated attempts to ban the practice and I'd rather not invite a second go of that particular quagmire.