Today the US is perhaps the only developed nation that routinely circumsizes baby boys, some estimates put the figure at close to 80% of new borns are subjected to this.
Given that no country other than the US circumcises for non-religious reasons, do you think this should continue or be discouraged, perhaps banned? is there any credible science based justification for what is - to all intents and purposes - genital mutilation?
Should we routinely circumcize
Moderator: Moderators
Should we routinely circumcize
Post #1
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Sun Mar 20, 2022 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- The Barbarian
- Sage
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 586 times
Re: Should we routinely circumcize
Post #41Antiochus IV tried to do both. Didn't turn out so well for him.Clownboat wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 4:06 pm I'm not sure I can get on board with what you seek to outlaw via enacting legislation.
Consider this:
- You don't want circumcisions and you suggest outlawing them.
- What would you say to a person that doesn't like a religious belief (pick one) and would seek to outlaw it via legislation?
Re: Should we routinely circumcize
Post #42Implying an equivalence between mutilating babies and society's tolerance of "religion" is a bizarre thing to do, very bizarre and I can't even begin to think of answering such a question or even agree that it deserves a serious answer.Clownboat wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 4:06 pmLet me condense this for you:Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Mar 30, 2022 3:10 pmI really don't know what to make of that post, anyone else any ideas?Clownboat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 30, 2022 2:52 pmWould this also work to cure the world from god beliefs and would it be fair pass laws to prohibit such things? My mother for one, she needs her religious beliefs and I would hate for them to be outlawed. She will be gone eventually afterall and she is sure done having babies that would be circumsized due to her religious beliefs.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Mar 30, 2022 2:31 pmIts easy to stop, just pass laws prohibiting male genital mutilation, have the medical industry refuse to perform surgery on healthy babies, babies not suffering from any form of illness.Clownboat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 30, 2022 2:25 pmHow do you think we can best cure this imposed need for circumcision and religious beliefs?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 29, 2022 1:30 pmOnly the US (and some other religious fundamentalist states) have this problem of routinely mutilating baby boys.Clownboat wrote: ↑Tue Mar 29, 2022 10:36 amIsn't it amazing how hard it is to remove ideas like this once they make it into a culture?Sherlock Holmes wrote:It become institutionalized in the US, cultural, men circumcize their sons just because they were themselves circumcized by their fathers, it is ongoing child genital mutilation dressed up as science, no different to eugenics in my opinion.
Men will bring their children up in their religion because they were themselves brought up in religion by their fathers.
How can we cure this imposed need for circumcision and religious beliefs I wonder?
What is odd is how Paul goes to great lengths to explain that circumcision is not necessary for salvations, meaningless under the new covenant yet US Christians by the truck load continue to do it.
How do we get fathers to stop teaching their children the teachings of their fathers?
Perhaps we just need to let them die off?
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography,
From what I've heard, it took a generation to die off before the shape of the earth and it's planetary trajectory became widely accepted even though it had been determined to be a scientific truth.
The resistence to new scientific truths (things supported by evidence and testing is what I'm meaning) is what I find astounding. I personally welcome new info, like for example, if a god were evidenced, I would be very interested, or a mechanism that better explains the animals we see not just now, but in the fossil record. Bring it on, I'm ready to learn! I lose nothing if a god/gods are shown to be real or the theory of Evolution falsified afterall.
I think all religions will be gone (for the most part) in the not so distant future, can't we just let them die off instead of punishments due to laws enacted? Even though their religion may be false, or their reasoning faulty for whatever we are deeming to be unacceptable (like you are with circumcision) do we really need to outlaw them? I'm not sure I can get behind such a thing.
Obviously, not everyone feels the way you do towards circumcision:
Male circumcision is compulsory for Jews and is commonly practiced among Muslims. When circumcision is performed for religious reasons, it usually symbolises faith in God but it may also be done to promote health and hygiene.
What is so bad about the bold that we need to pass laws to prevent such a thing?
1) Would this also work (the passing of laws that you brought up to prohibit genital mutilation) to cure the world from god beliefs? The mechanism that causes both to persist is the same, fathers telling their sons the teachings of their fathers. If we pass laws to prevent one, should we do so to prevent the other?
I'm not sure I can get on board with what you seek to outlaw via enacting legislation.
Consider this:
- You don't want circumcisions and you suggest outlawing them.
- What would you say to a person that doesn't like a religious belief (pick one) and would seek to outlaw it via legislation?
The fact is we have laws now but they are confined to the protection of females.
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9385
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1262 times
Re: Should we routinely circumcize
Post #43Sherlock Holmes wrote:I really don't know what to make of that post, anyone else any ideas?
Let me condense this for you:
1) Would this also work (the passing of laws that you brought up to prohibit genital mutilation) to cure the world from god beliefs? The mechanism that causes both to persist is the same, fathers telling their sons the teachings of their fathers. If we pass laws to prevent one, should we do so to prevent the other?
I'm not sure I can get on board with what you seek to outlaw via enacting legislation.
Consider this:
- You don't want circumcisions and you suggest outlawing them.
- What would you say to a person that doesn't like a religious belief (pick one) and would seek to outlaw it via legislation?
Copy/paste: "The mechanism that causes both to persist is the same, fathers telling their sons the teachings of their fathers."Sherlock Holmes wrote:Implying an equivalence between mutilating babies and society's tolerance of "religion" is a bizarre thing to do, very bizarre and I can't even begin to think of answering such a question or even agree that it deserves a serious answer.
The fact is we have laws now but they are confined to the protection of females.
For those that don't like circumcision, they can suggest enacting laws to circumvent the mechanism above (like you have done).
What if it is not circumcision on the table, but a religion? Should we also enact laws to circumvent that fathers are telling their sons the teachings of their fathers thus allowing these beliefs to persist?
Here is an example of a teaching that a father might pass on to their sons due to learning it from their father:
Genesis 17:13 — The New King James Version (NKJV)
13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Such a teaching might cause babies genitals to be mutilated. Should we pass laws to prohibit Christianity, or just the parts of Christianity that we find to be abhorred?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
Re: Should we routinely circumcize
Post #44This thread is about circumcision and science, why not start a new thread for what you want to discuss?Clownboat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 05, 2022 12:02 pmSherlock Holmes wrote:I really don't know what to make of that post, anyone else any ideas?Let me condense this for you:
1) Would this also work (the passing of laws that you brought up to prohibit genital mutilation) to cure the world from god beliefs? The mechanism that causes both to persist is the same, fathers telling their sons the teachings of their fathers. If we pass laws to prevent one, should we do so to prevent the other?
I'm not sure I can get on board with what you seek to outlaw via enacting legislation.
Consider this:
- You don't want circumcisions and you suggest outlawing them.
- What would you say to a person that doesn't like a religious belief (pick one) and would seek to outlaw it via legislation?Copy/paste: "The mechanism that causes both to persist is the same, fathers telling their sons the teachings of their fathers."Sherlock Holmes wrote:Implying an equivalence between mutilating babies and society's tolerance of "religion" is a bizarre thing to do, very bizarre and I can't even begin to think of answering such a question or even agree that it deserves a serious answer.
The fact is we have laws now but they are confined to the protection of females.
For those that don't like circumcision, they can suggest enacting laws to circumvent the mechanism above (like you have done).
What if it is not circumcision on the table, but a religion? Should we also enact laws to circumvent that fathers are telling their sons the teachings of their fathers thus allowing these beliefs to persist?
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9385
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1262 times
Re: Should we routinely circumcize
Post #45Correct, and I'm dealing with the mechanism that causes it to persist and considering the solution that YOU provided (enacting laws) to prevent what happens when fathers tell their sons the teachings of their fathers.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 05, 2022 12:05 pmThis thread is about circumcision and science, why not start a new thread for what you want to discuss?Clownboat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 05, 2022 12:02 pmSherlock Holmes wrote:I really don't know what to make of that post, anyone else any ideas?Let me condense this for you:
1) Would this also work (the passing of laws that you brought up to prohibit genital mutilation) to cure the world from god beliefs? The mechanism that causes both to persist is the same, fathers telling their sons the teachings of their fathers. If we pass laws to prevent one, should we do so to prevent the other?
I'm not sure I can get on board with what you seek to outlaw via enacting legislation.
Consider this:
- You don't want circumcisions and you suggest outlawing them.
- What would you say to a person that doesn't like a religious belief (pick one) and would seek to outlaw it via legislation?Copy/paste: "The mechanism that causes both to persist is the same, fathers telling their sons the teachings of their fathers."Sherlock Holmes wrote:Implying an equivalence between mutilating babies and society's tolerance of "religion" is a bizarre thing to do, very bizarre and I can't even begin to think of answering such a question or even agree that it deserves a serious answer.
The fact is we have laws now but they are confined to the protection of females.
For those that don't like circumcision, they can suggest enacting laws to circumvent the mechanism above (like you have done).
What if it is not circumcision on the table, but a religion? Should we also enact laws to circumvent that fathers are telling their sons the teachings of their fathers thus allowing these beliefs to persist?
Therefore, do we stop at circumcisions or should we outlaw religions that deem them worthy? Would not outlawing the religions that suggest wiener skin (or lack of it) is some sort of covenant with a god not decrease the amount of genitals that get mutilated each year? Seems odd to want to prevent that act, yet ignore the source that people use to justify the said act (even if you think their justification is off).
It's possible you are missing the forest for the trees to stop at outlawing the act of circumcision. Perhaps we should outlaw more? Thus I ask to get the take from a religious persons perspective.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
Re: Should we routinely circumcize
Post #46I think we should make it illegal to circumcise baby boys period. I care not whether the motive be religious or pseudoscience, it should be outlawed and those who break the law suffer the due penalties.Clownboat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 05, 2022 1:12 pmCorrect, and I'm dealing with the mechanism that causes it to persist and considering the solution that YOU provided (enacting laws) to prevent what happens when fathers tell their sons the teachings of their fathers.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 05, 2022 12:05 pmThis thread is about circumcision and science, why not start a new thread for what you want to discuss?Clownboat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 05, 2022 12:02 pmSherlock Holmes wrote:I really don't know what to make of that post, anyone else any ideas?Let me condense this for you:
1) Would this also work (the passing of laws that you brought up to prohibit genital mutilation) to cure the world from god beliefs? The mechanism that causes both to persist is the same, fathers telling their sons the teachings of their fathers. If we pass laws to prevent one, should we do so to prevent the other?
I'm not sure I can get on board with what you seek to outlaw via enacting legislation.
Consider this:
- You don't want circumcisions and you suggest outlawing them.
- What would you say to a person that doesn't like a religious belief (pick one) and would seek to outlaw it via legislation?Copy/paste: "The mechanism that causes both to persist is the same, fathers telling their sons the teachings of their fathers."Sherlock Holmes wrote:Implying an equivalence between mutilating babies and society's tolerance of "religion" is a bizarre thing to do, very bizarre and I can't even begin to think of answering such a question or even agree that it deserves a serious answer.
The fact is we have laws now but they are confined to the protection of females.
For those that don't like circumcision, they can suggest enacting laws to circumvent the mechanism above (like you have done).
What if it is not circumcision on the table, but a religion? Should we also enact laws to circumvent that fathers are telling their sons the teachings of their fathers thus allowing these beliefs to persist?
Therefore, do we stop at circumcisions or should we outlaw religions that deem them worthy? Would not outlawing the religions that suggest wiener skin (or lack of it) is some sort of covenant with a god not decrease the amount of genitals that get mutilated each year? Seems odd to want to prevent that act, yet ignore the source that people use to justify the said act (even if you think their justification is off).
It's possible you are missing the forest for the trees to stop at outlawing the act of circumcision. Perhaps we should outlaw more? Thus I ask to get the take from a religious persons perspective.
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9385
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1262 times
Re: Should we routinely circumcize
Post #47Seems like a slippery slope that a religious person would want to avoid.Sherlock Holmes wrote:I think we should make it illegal to circumcise baby boys period. I care not whether the motive be religious or pseudoscience, it should be outlawed and those who break the law suffer the due penalties.
What if people view teaching children about burning in a hell for eternity as something that should be illegal, period?
What if people view religions that justify circumcisions as something that should be illegal, period?
What if they care not that the motives are religious? See where the slippery slope leads in your reasoning?
I would think a religious person would be more open to the beliefs of others. You would literally seek to make a covenant with a god concept (you call it genital mutilation to make an emotional argument) to be something illegal. Those seeking this covenant with their god might be a bit upset when you attempt to muddle with their beliefs via laws.
Either way, it seems you protest too much if we look to the Bible:
1. The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. (Prov. 16:4)
How would this not include foreskin and the purpose it serves, which is argued by some to be a covenant with their god? Surely they should be allowed to have their beliefs, no?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
Re: Should we routinely circumcize
Post #48Does that involve mutilating babies?Clownboat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 05, 2022 3:50 pmSeems like a slippery slope that a religious person would want to avoid.Sherlock Holmes wrote:I think we should make it illegal to circumcise baby boys period. I care not whether the motive be religious or pseudoscience, it should be outlawed and those who break the law suffer the due penalties.
What if people view teaching children about burning in a hell for eternity as something that should be illegal, period?
Then let them take that view, what of it?
Outlaw it period - no exceptions - can I possibly make this any clearer?
Then off to prison they go just as the law allows now for the mutilation of baby girls.Clownboat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 05, 2022 3:50 pm I would think a religious person would be more open to the beliefs of others. You would literally seek to make a covenant with a god concept (you call it genital mutilation to make an emotional argument) to be something illegal. Those seeking this covenant with their god might be a bit upset when you attempt to muddle with their beliefs via laws.
There are no laws against beliefs nor do I advocate any, just the cutting of baby boys who are not suffering from any illness.Clownboat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 05, 2022 3:50 pm Either way, it seems you protest too much if we look to the Bible:
1. The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. (Prov. 16:4)
How would this not include foreskin and the purpose it serves, which is argued by some to be a covenant with their god? Surely they should be allowed to have their beliefs, no?
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9385
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1262 times
Re: Should we routinely circumcize
Post #49I trust the readers were able to follow along and understood the slipper slope argument and why it is just that.Then let them take that view, what of it?
Be well.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb