Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Lexilogio

Circumcision

I used to argue in favour of male circumcision - the female sexual partners of circumcised males are far less likely to get cervical cancer. So there are future health benefits (although not to the males themselves).

Now - I don't know.

What I do know is that no one is constructing a reasonable philosophical argument on circumcision - either for, or against.

Logically - is it acceptable? And if not - why not. What are the underlying principles which make it unacceptable?
gone

It should NEVER be performed on a child except for for good medical reasons. The idea of it being carried for religious or traditional purposes is WRONG, imo. If an adult wishes to be circumcised that is his choice, of course.
Leonard James

Willow wrote:
It should NEVER be performed on a child except for for good medical reasons. The idea of it being carried for religious or traditional purposes is WRONG, imo. If an adult wishes to be circumcised that is his choice, of course.

Absolutely, Roses! I was going to post exactly that, but wasn't sure if it is "philosophical" argument or not. Philosophy is a woolly concept for me.
Shaker

Re: Circumcision

Lexilogio wrote:
I used to argue in favour of male circumcision - the female sexual partners of circumcised males are far less likely to get cervical cancer. So there are future health benefits (although not to the males themselves).

Now - I don't know.

What I do know is that no one is constructing a reasonable philosophical argument on circumcision - either for, or against.

Logically - is it acceptable? And if not - why not. What are the underlying principles which make it unacceptable?

Simply, that in the absence of a valid therapeutic reason (i.e. for very, very good medical reasons, and only then where all other alternatives have been tried and failed) it is simply unacceptable to perform this kind of for all intents and purposes permanent surgery on a subject incapable of consent. Oftentimes it's performed without anaesthesia too, though the use of pain relief (tricky and for obvious reasons potentially dangerous in infants) doesn't make it all right: what's wrong is doing it at all, on ethical grounds. If it would be - is - wrong to administer pain relief to amputate a perfectly healthy finger for absolutely no good reason whatsoever, then circumcision is also wrong. If the amputation of one of the fingers of infants - let's say the little finger - had a supposedly religious reason which later acquired mindless cultural prevalence backed up by entirely spurious 'medical' reasons, then we would be here talking about cutting off the fingers of eight-day-old babies.

Ritual circumcision is wrong for a second reason: it is the imposition of a 'badge' of religious affiliation on a subject incapable of understanding let alone holding any ideas about religion at all. Parents who want to perform primitive and entirely needless surgery in the name of their religion should be perfectly free to do so - on themselves. They can hack whatever bits off themselves they please, up to and including auto-decapitation if they wish, but their right to wield a scalpel should end before it gets to anyone else's genitalia.

And the lowering of risk of cervical cancer doesn't appear all that reliable after all, as this other link also shows.
Leonard James

If losing the foreskin increased survival chances in either sex, evolution would have gradually selected for its elimination long before religious superstitions arose.
cymrudynnion

Leonard James wrote:
Willow wrote:
It should NEVER be performed on a child except for for good medical reasons. The idea of it being carried for religious or traditional purposes is WRONG, imo. If an adult wishes to be circumcised that is his choice, of course.

Absolutely, Roses! I was going to post exactly that, but wasn't sure if it is "philosophical" argument or not. Philosophy is a woolly concept for me.
If one is going to accept an arguement against circumcism (male) for religious or traditional reasons then surely one must accept arguements against any other tradition be it religious or not. That would immediately bring the wearing of burquas and nicabs etc into question
Shaker

cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Willow wrote:
It should NEVER be performed on a child except for for good medical reasons. The idea of it being carried for religious or traditional purposes is WRONG, imo. If an adult wishes to be circumcised that is his choice, of course.

Absolutely, Roses! I was going to post exactly that, but wasn't sure if it is "philosophical" argument or not. Philosophy is a woolly concept for me.
If one is going to accept an arguement against circumcism (male) for religious or traditional reasons then surely one must accept arguements against any other tradition be it religious or not.

Yes, absolutely correct, if those so-called 'traditions' are imposed upon non-competent subjects incapable of giving their free and informed consent. Spot on.

Quote:
That would immediately bring the wearing of burquas and nicabs etc into question

No. An adult female human being can choose to wear a burqa or a niqab.
Leonard James

cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Willow wrote:
It should NEVER be performed on a child except for for good medical reasons. The idea of it being carried for religious or traditional purposes is WRONG, imo. If an adult wishes to be circumcised that is his choice, of course.

Absolutely, Roses! I was going to post exactly that, but wasn't sure if it is "philosophical" argument or not. Philosophy is a woolly concept for me.
If one is going to accept an arguement against circumcism (male) for religious or traditional reasons then surely one must accept arguements against any other tradition be it religious or not. That would immediately bring the wearing of burquas and nicabs etc into question

Yes, I suppose so, if it is imposed on them.  However, I don't consider it half as important as bodily mutilation which is irreversible.
cymrudynnion

Shaker wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Willow wrote:
It should NEVER be performed on a child except for for good medical reasons. The idea of it being carried for religious or traditional purposes is WRONG, imo. If an adult wishes to be circumcised that is his choice, of course.

Absolutely, Roses! I was going to post exactly that, but wasn't sure if it is "philosophical" argument or not. Philosophy is a woolly concept for me.
If one is going to accept an arguement against circumcism (male) for religious or traditional reasons then surely one must accept arguements against any other tradition be it religious or not.

Yes, absolutely correct, if those so-called 'traditions' are imposed upon non-competent subjects incapable of giving their free and informed consent. Spot on.

Quote:
That would immediately bring the wearing of burquas and nicabs etc into question

No. An adult female human being can choose to wear a burqa or a niqab.
Unfortunately in the faith that considers it correct for females to wear nicabs etc they (I believe) consider females aged 12 as adults.
gone

All types of bodily mutilation of a child for traditional or religious purposes is wrong. I think ear piercing of a young child is also wrong and should be illegal. I have seen small babies with pierced ears, as well as the risk of infection  they could pull out the studs and swallow them, possibly causing them to choke.
Ketty

cymrudynnion wrote:
Unfortunately in the faith that considers it correct for females to wear nicabs etc they (I believe) consider females aged 12 as adults.


I don't think physical mutilation can be compared to the wearing of a certain types of clothing.

In all circumstances I object to female circumcision, however, if a chap wants to willingly have bits chopped off his willy then that's his choice.  When circumcision (and piercing) is forced upon an infant or child under the age of consent it should be made illegal.
cyberman

Leonard James wrote:
If losing the foreskin increased survival chances in either sex, evolution would have gradually selected for its elimination long before religious superstitions arose.


Really? Has evolution finished, then? When did our ancestors stop evolving?
Leonard James

cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
If losing the foreskin increased survival chances in either sex, evolution would have gradually selected for its elimination long before religious superstitions arose.


Really? Has evolution finished, then? When did our ancestors stop evolving?

Foreskins evolved long before humans appeared on the scene.

http://intactipedia.org/index.php?title=Evolution_of_the_Foreskin

and no, evolution has not finished, and while life persists on earth it never will.
cyberman

Leonard James wrote:
evolution has not finished, and while life persists on earth it never will.


Exactly. So why do you believe that evolution has already attained perfection, insofar as you believe that the continued existence of the foreskin proves that it cannot have ill effects, as evolution "would have" sorted it out by now?

Why do we still have an appendix?
Leonard James

cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
evolution has not finished, and while life persists on earth it never will.


Exactly. So why do you believe that evolution has already attained perfection, insofar as you believe that the continued existence of the foreskin proves that it cannot have ill effects, as evolution "would have" sorted it out by now?

The word 'perfection' is yours, not mine ... you seem to have the ability to see things that aren't there.

Evolution will always work towards eliminating unfavourable traits and preserving favourable ones.

Quote:
Why do we still have an appendix?

Obviously because any unfavourable aspect of its presence has not been around long enough (or is not serious enough) to affect reproductivity.
cyberman

Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
evolution has not finished, and while life persists on earth it never will.


Exactly. So why do you believe that evolution has already attained perfection, insofar as you believe that the continued existence of the foreskin proves that it cannot have ill effects, as evolution "would have" sorted it out by now?

The word 'perfection' is yours, not mine ... you seem to have the ability to see things that aren't there.

Evolution will always work towards eliminating unfavourable traits and preserving favourable ones.

Quote:
Why do we still have an appendix?

Obviously because any unfavourable aspect of its presence has not been around long enough (or is not serious enough) to affect reproductivity.


So do you consider it to be possible that the foreskin could have 'unfavourable aspects' and yet still be present, not yet evolved away?
Leonard James

cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
evolution has not finished, and while life persists on earth it never will.


Exactly. So why do you believe that evolution has already attained perfection, insofar as you believe that the continued existence of the foreskin proves that it cannot have ill effects, as evolution "would have" sorted it out by now?

The word 'perfection' is yours, not mine ... you seem to have the ability to see things that aren't there.

Evolution will always work towards eliminating unfavourable traits and preserving favourable ones.

Quote:
Why do we still have an appendix?

Obviously because any unfavourable aspect of its presence has not been around long enough (or is not serious enough) to affect reproductivity.


So do you consider it to be possible that the foreskin could have 'unfavourable aspects' and yet still be present, not yet evolved away?

Well no, it seems to me that evolution has accentuated it in humans rather than the other way round.

However you would need to ask a qualified scientist to get a decisive answer to that question.
Honey 56

The good Lord gave us an appendix for a very good reason, medical science in the past have said that this organ is a left over one from an early existence, but on the contrary,they are realsing that it is a valuable part of our immune system, it is rich in lymphoid tissue which helps fight infection.  It also stores the friendly bacteria we need to keep our gut healthy, when illness strips our stomachs of friendly bacteria, the appendix is ready and able to supply more immediately from its stores. People without an appendix are four times more likely to be re-infected with the superbug Clostridium difficile.

Surgeons no longer removes this organ as a precaution these days during routine surgery as they used to.

The Lord works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perrform!  

Honey
Leonard James

Honey 56 wrote:
The good Lord gave us an appendix for a very good reason, medical science in the past have said that this organ is a left over one from an early existence, but on the contrary,they are realsing that it is a valuable part of our immune system, it is rich in lymphoid tissue which helps fight infection.  It also stores the friendly bacteria we need to keep our gut healthy, when illness strips our stomachs of friendly bacteria, the appendix is ready and able to supply more immediately from its stores. People without an appendix are four times more likely to be re-infected with the superbug Clostridium difficile.

Surgeons no longer removes this organ as a precaution these days during routine surgery as they used to.

The Lord works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perrform!  

Honey

Yes, Honey! Well, that's how evolution works, anyway!
cyberman

Leonard James wrote:

However you would need to ask a qualified scientist to get a decisive answer to that question.


And yet you confidently assert that IF the foreskin had any adverse effectes THEN evolution would have gotten rid of it by now. How can you be so sure?
Leonard James

cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:

However you would need to ask a qualified scientist to get a decisive answer to that question.


And yet you confidently assert that IF the foreskin had any adverse effectes THEN evolution would have gotten rid of it by now. How can you be so sure?

Because that's how evolution works.
cyberman

Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:

However you would need to ask a qualified scientist to get a decisive answer to that question.


And yet you confidently assert that IF the foreskin had any adverse effectes THEN evolution would have gotten rid of it by now. How can you be so sure?

Because that's how evolution works.


So do you believe that the way that evolution works is that at no point in time does any organism have any traits which could have any adverse effects upon that organism?
Leonard James

cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:

However you would need to ask a qualified scientist to get a decisive answer to that question.


And yet you confidently assert that IF the foreskin had any adverse effectes THEN evolution would have gotten rid of it by now. How can you be so sure?

Because that's how evolution works.


So do you believe that the way that evolution works is that at no point in time does any organism have any traits which could have any adverse effects upon that organism?

Of course not! But it's the offspring that evolve, not the individual.

I'm gay, which doesn't augur well for my descendants.
cyberman

Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:

However you would need to ask a qualified scientist to get a decisive answer to that question.


And yet you confidently assert that IF the foreskin had any adverse effectes THEN evolution would have gotten rid of it by now. How can you be so sure?

Because that's how evolution works.


So do you believe that the way that evolution works is that at no point in time does any organism have any traits which could have any adverse effects upon that organism?

Of course not! But it's the offspring that evolve, not the individual.

I'm gay, which doesn't augur well for my descendants.


Then why can't it be the case that a foreskin could have adverse effects?
Leonard James

cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Leonard James wrote:

However you would need to ask a qualified scientist to get a decisive answer to that question.


And yet you confidently assert that IF the foreskin had any adverse effectes THEN evolution would have gotten rid of it by now. How can you be so sure?

Because that's how evolution works.


So do you believe that the way that evolution works is that at no point in time does any organism have any traits which could have any adverse effects upon that organism?

Of course not! But it's the offspring that evolve, not the individual.

I'm gay, which doesn't augur well for my descendants.


Then why can't it be the case that a foreskin could have adverse effects?

If the adverse effects affected survival or reproduction, natural selection would get rid of it.

Cyber, we are going round in circles. Let's leave it, huh?
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
Unfortunately in the faith that considers it correct for females to wear nicabs etc they (I believe) consider females aged 12 as adults.


Why do you "believe" that then, cym? Are you just making stuff up again?
Lexilogio

I get the idea of the lack of therapeutic argument, but why then do we allow surgery for bat ears, or removal of extra digits? Surely if surgery on children should only be performed for therapeutic reasons, then we should also ban cosmetic surgery on children?



BTW - Islam does not insist on the wearing of the niqab, that is a modern cultural interpretation. The Koran only states modest dress.
Leonard James

Lexilogio wrote:
I get the idea of the lack of therapeutic argument, but why then do we allow surgery for bat ears, or removal of extra digits?

Because no child or adult wants to be saddled for life with aspects which draw the derision of others, notwithstanding that their deriders are ignorant.
Quote:
Surely if surgery on children should only be performed for therapeutic reasons, then we should also ban cosmetic surgery on children?

I don't think so for the above reason. However, I agree that it is a controversial subject.
cyberman

Leonard James wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
I get the idea of the lack of therapeutic argument, but why then do we allow surgery for bat ears, or removal of extra digits?

Because no child or adult wants to be saddled for life with aspects which draw the derision of others, notwithstanding that their deriders are ignorant.
Quote:
Surely if surgery on children should only be performed for therapeutic reasons, then we should also ban cosmetic surgery on children?

I don't think so for the above reason. However, I agree that it is a controversial subject.


It is a grey area, isn't it?
However, the fact that there are areas where the right course is not clear, doesn't mean we shouldn't follow the right course when it is clear.
Powwow

My cousin was born with webbed fingers. It would have been interesting if my aunt and uncle had insisted the webbing remain.lol
Honey 56

cyberman wrote:

Quote:
Surely if surgery on children should only be performed for therapeutic reasons, then we should also ban cosmetic surgery on children?

I don't think so for the above reason. However, I agree that it is a controversial subject.


Quote:
It is a grey area, isn't it?
However, the fact that there are areas where the right course is not clear, doesn't mean we shouldn't follow the right course when it is clear
 

It is a grey area.
It could be argued that a child growing up in a faith where they believe God requires a certain action and it is the norm within that faith (although it looks as if the tide is changing on this from what I have read) that child could be psychlogically damaged because they do not fit in with their peers.
Being circumcised does not make someone a religious Jew, so some of the arguments about affiliation for life that are used, are false, circumcsion would not stop someone walking away from their faith, if they so desired.

Considering all the evidence available there does not seem to be any solid proof about whether this practice is either completely harmful or beneficial to a child's wellbeing, it has been practiced for many thousands of years! Perhaps  parents who do love and care for their children are more qualified to make a decision about this?

The Jewish custom of the 'eigth day', is very interesting and it does make you wonder how ancient people would have known the absolute best time to carry it out, medically speaking, worth a google.


Honey
gone

The deity would have to be a complete sadistic nutter to create a foreskin then demand its removal in cold blood when a baby is only eight days old!
Powwow

No He wouldn't. You would have to be nutters to think you are in a position to judge God.lol You have the roles reversed there.
Leonard James

pow wow wrote:
No He wouldn't. You would have to be nutters to think you are in a position to judge God.lol You have the roles reversed there.

You demonstrate beautifully the power of brainwashing, PW.

Why am I not surprised that Willow's logical conclusion is beyond your capacity to understand?
Powwow

I do understand how one without faith would come to that faulty conclusion.
trentvoyager

pow wow wrote:
I do understand how one without faith would come to that faulty conclusion.


According to some - god created us in his own image.

If we accept for the time being this is the case - how can it be right for us mere humans to mutilate the image he has made for us.

Surley that would be the most sacriligeous of acts ?
Leonard James

pow wow wrote:
I do understand how one without faith would come to that faulty conclusion.

But it's the brainwashing (faith) that makes you think it is a faulty conclusion, my friend. And that is what you can't understand.
Powwow

trent,
You think I'm mutilated? One of these days Alice, POW, right to the moon!
Powwow

But seriously trent, I've seen the light, I have reformed. Yup, it's been about 15yrs. ago that I had 2 inches of my hair trimmed off.lol
trentvoyager

pow wow wrote:
But seriously trent, I've seen the light, I have reformed. Yup, it's been about 15yrs. ago that I had 2 inches of my hair trimmed off.lol


Except there is a difference between the dead matter that comes out of your skull - and the live flesh at the end of your penis.

Don't get me wrong - I don't give a stuff if you want to have  your cock circumsised.

On the subject of kids I come back to the advice a nurse gave me a long, long time ago - do not go under the surgeons knife unless you have to for medical reasons.

If that advice holds for adults - I don't therefore see how in good conscience anyone can impose a procedure that has no medical benefit to the child.

That is still sound advice, btw - I am reminded of a famous American woman writer (name escapes me at the moment) who went in for Plastic Surgery for purely aesthetic reasons and came out looking not a day older - and she never will age now. She died as a result of the procedure.
Lexilogio

There is a slight risk of harm - but it is small. There is also a benefit in reduction of cervical cancer in the opposite gender.

So is it ok to take the risk on the basis of prevention of disease in others? Potentially in those the child will love? Bearing in mind that if the boy turns out to be homosexual there is no benefit to the procedure.
Leonard James

Lexilogio wrote:
There is a slight risk of harm - but it is small. There is also a benefit in reduction of cervical cancer in the opposite gender.

So is it ok to take the risk on the basis of prevention of disease in others? Potentially in those the child will love? Bearing in mind that if the boy turns out to be homosexual there is no benefit to the procedure.

I understand that there is strong doubt now that there is any connection between cervical cancer and circumcision.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum