Circumcision: Double Standard?

[Alyakia]

Well, no, because I'm 22 and that would be an interesting legal situation they do not have control in.

and if you were a kid? would you be ok with growing up with them? would you be ok with other kids having it done to them?

I guess really, I've just come to see circumcision as such a normalised procedure that I don't see anything drastically wrong with it.

yes, this is exactly it. the weird part is you come from a culture where it died out once the NHS stopped giving it out for free.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes, that's why I become physically enraged in the European Migrant Crisis thread over people's largely racially-derived opinions on people fleeing war and violence

Having a hot button issue doesn't mean you have empathy.

Because clearly we have rookies as psychologists in NSG.

[The Alma Mater]

Then why are mostly Christians doing it? You can't (rationally) argue with the statistics.

I have a crazy idea. Maybe being Christian isn't the be all and end all of their lives. Maybe they can practice infant circumcision for reasons wholly unrelated to their fondness for Jesus.

Hypothesis: a history filled with accepting slavery.

Think about it. The way of thought that says "it is ok to circumcise this kid because I want to" is almost identical to the way of thinking of people who said "it is ok to hold this man in slavery".
The USA never really got over that.

Okok. Farfetched. I am not a psychologist.

[Test208]

I guess really, I've just come to see circumcision as such a normalised procedure that I don't see anything drastically wrong with it.

Because you have no empathy.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I have a crazy idea. Maybe being Christian isn't the be all and end all of their lives. Maybe they can practice infant circumcision for reasons wholly unrelated to their fondness for Jesus.

Hypothesis: a history filled with accepting slavery.

Think about it. The way of thought that says "it is ok to circumcise this kid because I want to" is almost identical to the way of thinking of people who said "it is ok to hold this man in slavery".
The USA never really got over that.

Okok. Farfetched. I am not a psychologist.

I mean, it's not so much the fact that slavery and complete control over a child are the same as much as the fact is that throughout most of Western history children have been seen as "property" of the parents in a legalistic sense, and in a social sense seen as people needed to be taught by the father figure.

At least, be glad it's not like Roman times when Pater Potestas was the common way and your own father could decide whether you'd get to live or not.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I guess really, I've just come to see circumcision as such a normalised procedure that I don't see anything drastically wrong with it.

Because you have no empathy.

You can't feel empathy towards people you don't know.

Stop tossing that word around like you know what it means.

[Test208]

You can't feel empathy towards people you don't know.

Correction: you can't. A large number of other people do.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You can't feel empathy towards people you don't know.

Correction: you can't. A large number of other people do.

A large number of people don't.

They feel bad about something that's happening in another part of the world. That means nothing. Yea, people feel bad about it, but do they feel empathy? I don't think so.

You can only put yourself in positions you know. But if you don't know the full picture, all you have is sympathy, but you cannot empathize with the other person.

[The Alma Mater]

Hypothesis: a history filled with accepting slavery.

Think about it. The way of thought that says "it is ok to circumcise this kid because I want to" is almost identical to the way of thinking of people who said "it is ok to hold this man in slavery".
The USA never really got over that.

Okok. Farfetched. I am not a psychologist.

I mean, it's not so much the fact that slavery and complete control over a child are the same.

Indeed. Kids and slaves are after all both merely property. They,in theory, could one day become actual persons with their own lives - but until that time they are free to mould however the owner/parent wishes.

At least, that is the vibe I am getting. But this is merely a forum - and written text is often so inaccurate when conveying meaning.

[Imperializt Russia]

I guess really, I've just come to see circumcision as such a normalised procedure that I don't see anything drastically wrong with it.

Because you have no empathy.

You're not my dad.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I mean, it's not so much the fact that slavery and complete control over a child are the same.

Indeed. Kids and slaves are after all both merely property. They,in theory, could one day become actual persons with their own lives - but until that time they are free to mould however the owner/parent wishes.

At least, that is the vibe I am getting. But this is merely a forum - and written text is often so inaccurate when conveying meaning.

Well, parents have the responsibility to bring up their children in a way that society deems acceptable. As such, yea, parents have the responsibility to mould them in a reasonable manner. The goal of a parent should always be to see their kids actually become actual persons with their own lives. That doesn't mean it always is, and that is wrong too.

By the way, I do see an issue with circumcision, but I am not going to sit here and say that the law should change because the law already makes it possible to opt out of a circumcision in places like the U.S. where circumcision is or was routine. What needs to change is social perceptions around circumcision (and to an extent, parenting in general), which is the bigger issue here.

[Test208]

You're not my dad.

The concept of moral programming is your extent of feeling for others.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You're not my dad.

The concept of moral programming is your extent of feeling for others.

Yea, and we care about those who are closer to us than those who we have nothing in common with.

[The Alma Mater]

The concept of moral programming is your extent of feeling for others.

Yea, and we care about those who are closer to us than those who we have nothing in common with.

True, though some have an oddly shaped monkeysphere.

[Test208]

Yea, and we care about those who are closer to us than those who we have nothing in common with.

It's good that you have something in common with members of the homosapien race proper.

[Ostroeuropa]

Circumcision doesn't cover all MGM, and Female Castration is one form of FGM that is often presented as all of it.

Well since you linked back to this, Ostro, let's clear up that we're not talking about castration.

Male castration is the amputation of the testicles, which would make it biologically impossible for the male to reproduce and would also remove the main source of sex hormones.

The female equivalent would be removal of the ovaries.

Neither of those are what we're talking about are they?

If people bring up FGM, and say circumcision isn't as bad as it, I feel obliged to point out they are being disingenuous because then the ARE talking about it then. I say castration and mean it as in, removal of the sexual organ. In womens case, the clitoris.

There are a lot of nerve endings in the foreskin. Not as many as the clitoris, but it's a quantitative distinction not a qualitative one.

And also, "female genital mutilation" means any modification to the external genitals which isn't medically necessary. The removal of the clitoris is an extreme form of that.

To characterize all FGM as the extreme form is exactly equivalent to characterizing all MGM as the extreme form. "Circumcision is cutting little boys' penises off!" ... does that sound reasonable at all?

Of course, we could also just assume people are talking about the most common forms of circumcision. Which for women is the removal of the labia and clithood with a razor in a dirty ditch; while for men it is the careful sterile cutting of the foreskin.

Got a source on the most common form of FGM?

[Gim]

I guess really, I've just come to see circumcision as such a normalised procedure that I don't see anything drastically wrong with it.

It is the same as removing your appendix, but, personally, I don't want to get circumcised. The surgical procedure is pretty much meaningless.

[Frisbeeteria]

There's nothing to understand, he's a psychopath.

*** Warned for flaming ***

[Daburuetchi]

I am very strongly against male circumcision but female genital mutilation is simply on a whole different plan of horrific and will most definitely cause problems for the girl later in life whereas the overwhelming majority of men who are circumcised can go through life with few if any noticeable side effects. So no I would say female circumcision is objectively worse

[American Imperial Union]

Unless religiously necessary, it should be illegal. It's unnecessary, and the adult can make that decision. Those who "decide "to make this life time decision for their children are despicable. They should be arrested or liable for it.

The doctors who perform it are going against medical ethics and should lose their licenses.

Cultural tradition is not an excuse to permanently chop off one of the most sensitive parts of the human body. It is not your body to mutilate, and you should be held accountable for that. 20-30 years in prison.


That's my opinion, anyway.

[Gim]

Unless religiously necessary, it should be illegal. It's unnecessary, and the adult can make that decision. Those who "decide "to make this life time decision for their children are despicable. They should be arrested or liable for it.

The doctors who perform it are going against medical ethics and should lose their licenses.

Cultural tradition is not an excuse to permanently chop off one of the most sensitive parts of the human body. It is not your body to mutilate, and you should be held accountable for that. 20-30 years in prison.


That's my opinion, anyway.

Just as a note: Circumcision is the removal of penile or urethral foreskin. It's not necessarily talking about chopping off a penis. At least, that is how I interpreted your statement.

[American Imperial Union]

Unless religiously necessary, it should be illegal. It's unnecessary, and the adult can make that decision. Those who "decide "to make this life time decision for their children are despicable. They should be arrested or liable for it.

The doctors who perform it are going against medical ethics and should lose their licenses.

Cultural tradition is not an excuse to permanently chop off one of the most sensitive parts of the human body. It is not your body to mutilate, and you should be held accountable for that. 20-30 years in prison.


That's my opinion, anyway.

Just as a note: Circumcision is the removal of penile or urethral foreskin. It's not necessarily talking about chopping off a penis. At least, that is how I interpreted your statement.

Well, chopping off any part of the genitals of any human being is a violation of the child's human rights.

[Redsection]

Circumcision should be banned,It's mutilation without consent.

[Gim]

Circumcision should be banned,It's mutilation without consent.

Not necessarily. A grown-up or a teenager can consent to it.

[Redsection]

Circumcision should be banned,It's mutilation without consent.

Not necessarily. A grown-up or a teenager can consent to it.

A baby cannot,This is what I mean.Otherwise not allowed at birth.