NHS and the denial of circumcision.

[Dazchan]

But surely medical necessity is not intrinsically superior to spiritual necessity?

It is a medical necessity for the child.
It is a spiritual necessity for the childs parents.

So I fear that, in this case, one can argue it is when the body of the child is concerned.

But from a religious perspective, it is a spiritual necessity, and it is a moral arrogance and presumption to assume that the NHS should start from a default position of atheism.

Is Britain a secular state? I do believe it is.
Therefore government organizations must start from the default position of atheism.
(More importantly yes medical concerns are intrinsically superior to spiritual ones)

No we have a state religion. Yeah I know, it's really draconian.

The state religion doesn't require genital mutilation though

[EvilDarkMagicians]

The state religion doesn't require genital mutilation though

Yeah I know I didn't say that. Technically the state encourages you not to have circumcision unless for medical reasons.

[DaWoad]

Yeah I know. Technically the state requires you not to have circumcision unless for medical reasons.

which doesn't change the fact that it blows my secular state therefore presumption of atheism argument right out of the water :\

[Utvara]

Yeah I know. Technically the state requires you not to have circumcision unless for medical reasons.

which doesn't change the fact that it blows my secular state therefore presumption of atheism argument right out of the water :\

From what I know, the United Kingdom is, aside from that State Religion holdover, mostly secular. Correct me if I'm wrong, however.

edit: Though, I think there's some Anglican Bishops in the Upper House.

[DaWoad]

Yeah I know. Technically the state requires you not to have circumcision unless for medical reasons.

which doesn't change the fact that it blows my secular state therefore presumption of atheism argument right out of the water :\

From what I know, the United Kingdom is, aside from that State Religion holdover, mostly secular. Correct me if I'm wrong, however.

I think you're right, I hope you're right, I mean I spend about a month every year in Great Britain and I hold British citizenship (dual, with Canadian) if there is some sort of massive state-based religious movement I've totally managed to miss it.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Yeah I know. Technically the state requires you not to have circumcision unless for medical reasons.

which doesn't change the fact that it blows my secular state therefore presumption of atheism argument right out of the water :\

Sorry.

[DaWoad]

Yeah I know. Technically the state requires you not to have circumcision unless for medical reasons.

which doesn't change the fact that it blows my secular state therefore presumption of atheism argument right out of the water :\

Sorry.

lol not forgiven! bad EDM! *grins*
no, actually I like being corrected when I'm factually wrong. Thank you.

[Person012345]

Yeah I know. Technically the state requires you not to have circumcision unless for medical reasons.

which doesn't change the fact that it blows my secular state therefore presumption of atheism argument right out of the water :\

As I already said, the NHS is a medical organisation, not a spiritual one. If they want to try and start the National Spiritual Health Service, they can try but I doubt it would go down well with taxpayers.

And tbh, religion has less place here than it does in the states. Just because a nation is secular or not doesn't mean that the policies and people are geared towards secularism or not.

[Nimzonia]

It might be the state religion, but the only real purpose of the anglican church these days is to complain in the Torygraph about how irrelevent they are.

[DaWoad]

Yeah I know. Technically the state requires you not to have circumcision unless for medical reasons.

which doesn't change the fact that it blows my secular state therefore presumption of atheism argument right out of the water :\

As I already said, the NHS is a medical organisation, not a spiritual one. If they want to try and start the National Spiritual Health Service, they can try but I doubt it would go down well with taxpayers.

And tbh, religion has less place here than it does in the states. Just because a nation is secular or not doesn't mean that the policies and people are geared towards secularism or not.

oh and I completely agree *this is me agreeing* it's just that my argument (not yours on anyone else's variation on it) was provably false. I should have argued that NHS was a medical institution and therefore in matters related to it Atheism was the default position (which is what your argument prety much is) I just didn't *shrugs*.

[Person012345]

Yeah I know. Technically the state requires you not to have circumcision unless for medical reasons.

which doesn't change the fact that it blows my secular state therefore presumption of atheism argument right out of the water :\

As I already said, the NHS is a medical organisation, not a spiritual one. If they want to try and start the National Spiritual Health Service, they can try but I doubt it would go down well with taxpayers.

And tbh, religion has less place here than it does in the states. Just because a nation is secular or not doesn't mean that the policies and people are geared towards secularism or not.

oh and I completely agree *this is me agreeing* it's just that my argument (not yours on anyone else's variation on it) was provably false. I should have argued that NHS was a medical institution and therefore in matters related to it Atheism was the default position (which is what your argument prety much is) I just didn't *shrugs*.

Ok.

Though I would argue that we shouldn't care whether the default pposition is atheism and that it doesn't matter what the default position is. The one question it should ask is whether there is a medical need for a procedure. As it happens, that does lead to the default of atheism in that it doesn't take into account people's religious beliefs. Not that "atheism" is really a "position" anyway. Atheism encompasses a huge range of things, and some atheistic religions, or some atheistic individuals, may also demand bodily mutilation. I would take exactly the same stance there, ask if there is a medical need for the procedure.

[DaWoad]

Yeah I know. Technically the state requires you not to have circumcision unless for medical reasons.

which doesn't change the fact that it blows my secular state therefore presumption of atheism argument right out of the water :\

As I already said, the NHS is a medical organisation, not a spiritual one. If they want to try and start the National Spiritual Health Service, they can try but I doubt it would go down well with taxpayers.

And tbh, religion has less place here than it does in the states. Just because a nation is secular or not doesn't mean that the policies and people are geared towards secularism or not.

oh and I completely agree *this is me agreeing* it's just that my argument (not yours on anyone else's variation on it) was provably false. I should have argued that NHS was a medical institution and therefore in matters related to it Atheism was the default position (which is what your argument prety much is) I just didn't *shrugs*.

Ok.

Though I would argue that we shouldn't care whether the default pposition is atheism and that it doesn't matter what the default position is. The one question it should ask is whether there is a medical need for a procedure. As it happens, that does lead to the default of atheism in that it doesn't take into account people's religious beliefs. Not that "atheism" is really a "position" anyway. Atheism encompasses a huge range of things, and some atheistic religions, or some atheistic individuals, may also demand bodily mutilation. I would take exactly the same stance there, ask if there is a medical need for the procedure.

Ah right, yes I would agree with that too. . . . uh oh . . .you and me agreeing person? something has gone horribly horribly wrong with the world! *grins*

[Trippoli]

And I still want to know why you have such a big problem with Circumcision anyway.

It wastes public money.
I'm also looking at this from own point of view.
As I think my penis is pretty much perfect and its really not my parents choice to cut of a piece of my penis.
Its should me my choice alone, unless its for a medical reason.

It doesn't cost alot, sometimes free if you get the procedure at birth.
So you think you dick is the dominant dick of the world?
Does it really fucking matter? Honestly its just a bunch of skin.

Yes, it really fucking matters.

It doesn't for me.... I was circumcised. If you were not, I don't see why you should care.

So... if, for example, you weren't tortured... you shouldn't care about other people being tortured?

Or, if you weren't beaten, you shouldn't care about other people being beaten?

or are we just arguing special exception for genital mutilation?

Uh, no.

Torture shouldn't be compared to something like Circumcision.

I wasn't beaten, I wasn't tortured, I was circumcised. It isn't even all that bad, it's cutting off extra skin, not ripping your dick off and dissecting it.

He wasn't comparing circumcision and torture.
He was comparing the principle, there's a difference.
Why do you not understand this?

He brought torture into the argument.

He asked me if If I wouldn't care that others are tortured just because I don't have a problem with Circumcision.

And because this is a fucking retarded topic

[Utvara]

And I still want to know why you have such a big problem with Circumcision anyway.

It wastes public money.
I'm also looking at this from own point of view.
As I think my penis is pretty much perfect and its really not my parents choice to cut of a piece of my penis.
Its should me my choice alone, unless its for a medical reason.

It doesn't cost alot, sometimes free if you get the procedure at birth.
So you think you dick is the dominant dick of the world?
Does it really fucking matter? Honestly its just a bunch of skin.

Yes, it really fucking matters.

It doesn't for me.... I was circumcised. If you were not, I don't see why you should care.

So... if, for example, you weren't tortured... you shouldn't care about other people being tortured?

Or, if you weren't beaten, you shouldn't care about other people being beaten?

or are we just arguing special exception for genital mutilation?

Uh, no.

Torture shouldn't be compared to something like Circumcision.

I wasn't beaten, I wasn't tortured, I was circumcised. It isn't even all that bad, it's cutting off extra skin, not ripping your dick off and dissecting it.

He wasn't comparing circumcision and torture.
He was comparing the principle, there's a difference.
Why do you not understand this?

He brought torture into the argument.

He asked me if If I wouldn't care that others are tortured just because I don't have a problem with Circumcision.

And because this is a fucking retarded topic

He asked you to apply your logic to another situation, to show how bad it is.

I think you're being obtuse on purpose, really.

And no, it isn't. No one is attacking your penis, Trippoli. Relax.

[The Alma Mater]

And because this is a fucking retarded topic

Why ? Because it asks if the taxpayer should pay for unneeded medical procedures done solely to please the parents of the kid it is performed on ?

Seems a pretty fair question even without the whole "should parents be allowed to do this in the first place" and the "are parents that do this showing disrespect towards the individuality of their offspring" sidedebates

[Southern Patriots]

Something like at least 70% of circumcised men in the world are Jews or Muslims. I wonder how it caught on outside those two faiths.

[Person012345]

Something like at least 70% of circumcised men in the world are Jews or Muslims. I wonder how it caught on outside those two faiths.

Teh ebil jew conspiricy. *nods*

[Southern Patriots]

Something like at least 70% of circumcised men in the world are Jews or Muslims. I wonder how it caught on outside those two faiths.

Teh ebil jew conspiricy. *nods*

With Freemason/Muslim Obama leading the conspiracy, no doubt, intending on placing Kenya in charge of the world.

[Dempublicents1]

He wasn't comparing circumcision and torture.
He was comparing the principle, there's a difference.
Why do you not understand this?

He brought torture into the argument.

He asked me if If I wouldn't care that others are tortured just because I don't have a problem with Circumcision.

Wrong. He asked you if the same principle that you apply to circumcision would also apply to torture. You said that people who have not been circumcised should not care about circumcision. He was simply asking if you apply the same logic to torture - should people who have not been tortured also not care about torture? You could really put anything in there. Should people who have not had their ears pierced also not care if a parent pierces the ears of a child? Should people who have not had their tonsils out also not care if a child's tonsils are removed?

[Maurepas]

He wasn't comparing circumcision and torture.
He was comparing the principle, there's a difference.
Why do you not understand this?

He brought torture into the argument.

He asked me if If I wouldn't care that others are tortured just because I don't have a problem with Circumcision.

Wrong. He asked you if the same principle that you apply to circumcision would also apply to torture. You said that people who have not been circumcised should not care about circumcision. He was simply asking if you apply the same logic to torture - should people who have not been tortured also not care about torture? You could really put anything in there. Should people who have not had their ears pierced also not care if a parent pierces the ears of a child? Should people who have not had their tonsils out also not care if a child's tonsils are removed?

I can't remember the name of it, but, I read in a book once that recommended people be shot first before they are able to own a gun.

[Blouman Empire]

This is irrelevant to everything I've said as I've made no such argument. I think you better read my posts a bit better.

It appears to be Phenia's MO on this topic.

[Cybach]

As a proper white person it was clear from the start that I'd never be circumcised. Circumcision is for Jews and dirty Arabs. My north European parents and grandparents would not have stood for this kind of shenanigans. I personally don't care about circumcision one way or another.

[The Lone Alliance]

I agree with you completely, its just too bad they haven't gone the whole 9-yards and outlawed it except in the case of medical necessity.

Which means that all they'll have to do is say it's a Medically necessity.

[Person012345]

I agree with you completely, its just too bad they haven't gone the whole 9-yards and outlawed it except in the case of medical necessity.

Which means that all they'll have to do is say it's a Medically necessity.

No. This might be the way the religious often (not always) argue, by simply saying it over and over they think it becomes true, but that doesn't work when the organisation actually demands proof. If they say "prove that it's a medical necessity, allow our doctors to look at you" saying "no, you can't prove it isn't a medical necessity" isn't going to work. They're going to tell you to piss off.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

I agree with you completely, its just too bad they haven't gone the whole 9-yards and outlawed it except in the case of medical necessity.

Which means that all they'll have to do is say it's a Medically necessity.

Only doctors would be able to confirm that.