|
Post by llanwydd on Feb 22, 2024 22:17:02 GMT
I am sure most of you know by now that a child in Indiana has been seized by the state government because his parents will not call him her. The parents say that their religious beliefs have something to do with it. I would like to propose that now that we have entered into a social climate of breaking up families over their religious standards, it is now the perfect time to implement legislation against infant circumcision. If Indiana can take a child away from a very good set of parents because of their religion, certainly we can prevent cruel and barbaric acts of painful child mutilation.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Feb 22, 2024 23:55:19 GMT
The courts aren't taking kids away from their parents because of religion, they're taking them away because their parents won't let them take puberty blockers and get their reproductive organs completely removed/mutilated. Do you really think circumcising a boy is worse than this?
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Feb 23, 2024 1:02:39 GMT
The courts aren't taking kids away from their parents because of religion, they're taking them away because their parents won't let them take puberty blockers and get their reproductive organs completely removed/mutilated. Do you really think circumcising a boy is worse than this? Not so in the Indiana case. You might want to read up on it.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Feb 23, 2024 1:39:51 GMT
The courts aren't taking kids away from their parents because of religion, they're taking them away because their parents won't let them take puberty blockers and get their reproductive organs completely removed/mutilated. Do you really think circumcising a boy is worse than this? Not so in the Indiana case. You might want to read up on it.
In your own words, that child was taken away because the parents refuse to call their son their daughter, proof that the cause was not 'religion'.
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Feb 23, 2024 1:51:58 GMT
Not so in the Indiana case. You might want to read up on it.
In your own words, that child was taken away because the parents refuse to call their son their daughter, proof that the cause was not 'religion'.
Like I said, read up on it. It is not a matter of my own words. The parents cited their religious convictions as their motivation.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Feb 23, 2024 4:41:07 GMT
In your own words, that child was taken away because the parents refuse to call their son their daughter, proof that the cause was not 'religion'.
Like I said, read up on it. It is not a matter of my own words. The parents cited their religious convictions as their motivation.
Because their alternatives would be what kind of exemptions? None?
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Feb 23, 2024 5:15:28 GMT
Like I said, read up on it. It is not a matter of my own words. The parents cited their religious convictions as their motivation.
Because their alternatives would be what kind of exemptions? None?
I find your posts to fall short of coherency. Maybe that is just me. I am hoping that somebody else might try to bring that last one into focus.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Feb 23, 2024 8:05:10 GMT
Because their alternatives would be what kind of exemptions? None?
I find your posts to fall short of coherency. Maybe that is just me. I am hoping that somebody else might try to bring that last one into focus.
Nobody gets to claim a common sense exemption, do they? We're really at a point the state is threatening to remove your kids literally if you say things they don't like. That's supposed to be on the same par with beating them, starving them, drugging them, pimping them out, etc? So what options do the families who refuse to follow along with this, have aside from an attempt at 'religious exemption'?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,694
Likes: 1,329
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 23, 2024 14:48:58 GMT
I hadn't heard of this case, so looked it up and unsurprisingly it's more complex than just parents not being allowed to have strict Catholic views on gender.
It seems the issue was the child had developed a long-term (over 2 years) severe eating disorder and social workers had identified the parents' stance on their gender identity as a major contributing factor as the child was self-isolating without food as a response. So they recommended the child be placed in a gender-affirming household rather than risk the eating disorder getting any worse.
So it was basically a desperate move to save a child's life.
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Feb 23, 2024 16:00:02 GMT
Thanks for clearing that up. I had heard about it first on a Fox News radio station and then read about it on MSN News. Like most news outlets, both are very one-sided and I have found that to get the clearest picture of the news it is best to pay attention to both sides and try to read between the lines. It usually works but not always. Still, I consider infant circumcision to be a horrendous crime and that was one of the main points of the original post.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,694
Likes: 1,329
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 23, 2024 16:43:52 GMT
Still, I consider infant circumcision to be a horrendous crime and that was one of the main points of the original post. It's a tricky one that and not one I have a fixed opinion on. For one thing there are still a huge amount secular medical experts who consider circumcision more beneficial than harmful so it's not clear that it is actually hurting the child. If we did want to stamp it out, heavy-handed approaches can be seen as persecuting religious minorities like how some of the secularisation laws in France are seen by some as Islamophobic. With circumcision, the two main religious groups that practice it are Jews and Muslims. With Muslims, it's more a tradition than a hard and fast rule and it's done on slightly older children (usually around 7). So there probably is some capacity there to work with Muslim groups to discourage the practice as unnecessary. It's a bit more central in Judaism and done primarily to babies so that would be trickier.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 23, 2024 20:47:04 GMT
Still, I consider infant circumcision to be a horrendous crime and that was one of the main points of the original post. It's a tricky one that and not one I have a fixed opinion on. For one thing there are still a huge amount secular medical experts who consider circumcision more beneficial than harmful so it's not clear that it is actually hurting the child. If we did want to stamp it out, heavy-handed approaches can be seen as persecuting religious minorities like how some of the secularisation laws in France are seen by some as Islamophobic. With circumcision, the two main religious groups that practice it are Jews and Muslims. With Muslims, it's more a tradition than a hard and fast rule and it's done on slightly older children (usually around 7). So there probably is some capacity there to work with Muslim groups to discourage the practice as unnecessary. It's a bit more central in Judaism and done primarily to babies so that would be trickier. My problem with circumcision is that it is done primarily for ritual purposes on those who are too young to give consent. If the religious wish to mutilate themselves that is entirely up to them but let's at least keep it to the adults.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 23, 2024 20:55:27 GMT
It's a tricky one that and not one I have a fixed opinion on. For one thing there are still a huge amount secular medical experts who consider circumcision more beneficial than harmful so it's not clear that it is actually hurting the child. If we did want to stamp it out, heavy-handed approaches can be seen as persecuting religious minorities like how some of the secularisation laws in France are seen by some as Islamophobic. With circumcision, the two main religious groups that practice it are Jews and Muslims. With Muslims, it's more a tradition than a hard and fast rule and it's done on slightly older children (usually around 7). So there probably is some capacity there to work with Muslim groups to discourage the practice as unnecessary. It's a bit more central in Judaism and done primarily to babies so that would be trickier. My problem with circumcision is that it is done primarily for ritual purposes on those who are too young to give consent. If the religious wish to mutilate themselves that is entirely up to them but let's at least keep it to the adults. The difference between performing circumcision on babies & performing it on older people is, babies will have no memory of the experience, whereas if you are older, you will remember how painful the experience was.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 23, 2024 21:16:17 GMT
My problem with circumcision is that it is done primarily for ritual purposes on those who are too young to give consent. If the religious wish to mutilate themselves that is entirely up to them but let's at least keep it to the adults. The difference between performing circumcision on babies & performing it on older people is, babies will have no memory of the experience, whereas if you are older, you will remember how painful the experience was. I am sure that is the case but a baby or young child is simply unable to give consent for a permanent mutilation. especially one done for primarily ritual purposes. On your reasoning why not prefer mutilating the genitals of the senile or those with dementia?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 23, 2024 21:28:33 GMT
The difference between performing circumcision on babies & performing it on older people is, babies will have no memory of the experience, whereas if you are older, you will remember how painful the experience was. I am sure that is the case but a baby or young child is simply unable to give consent for a permanent mutilation. especially one done for primarily ritual purposes. On your reasoning why not prefer mutilating the genitals of the senile or those with dementia? Good question. Because by the time one becomes senile, etc., they would have had to endure a very long life with that foreskin, collecting dust etc, causing them to get rashes, etc., from all that itchiness.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 23, 2024 23:11:04 GMT
I am sure that is the case but a baby or young child is simply unable to give consent for a permanent mutilation. especially one done for primarily ritual purposes. On your reasoning why not prefer mutilating the genitals of the senile or those with dementia? Good question. Because by the time one becomes senile, etc., they would have had to endure a very long life with that foreskin, collecting dust etc, causing them to get rashes, etc., from all that itchiness. All of which might be true but the principal reason for the mutilation is ritualistic . Also, being cut or uncut doesn’t have enough effect on your risk for most conditions to universally recommend a surgical procedure. It doesn’t affect your overall sexual health. www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/circumcised-vs-uncircumcised#takeaway The impression is that health advantages, if any (and those you mention are very minor), are introduced to justify something which cannot otherwise be easily justified when usually done for family, cultural or religious reasons especially in children below the age of consent, while the argument that children forget trauma more easily is also weak. It would be better to spare children trauma at all.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 23, 2024 23:33:58 GMT
Very surprised, heard on the radio years ago that circumcision was outlawed in America, or at last in some states. Urban legend it seems. And, well, no. It will be the right time one day, but not on a single case.
Ps most interesting part of that very long work of doctrine is the point about children. Reminded me that not so long ago children were treated without anesthetics. The ground was their nervous system : not adults, they were considered as not beings very sensible.I think that was Descartes’s influence (maybe).
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 24, 2024 13:43:02 GMT
First 9 pages abstract provided by bing research*. Not as well made as above quoted page. Copypasting of references results in unreadable heap (see above, ending of quote) Sourcewww.cirp.org/library/legal/
* Searched ”law and ethic of child male circumcision” thanks to bing copilot
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Feb 24, 2024 18:17:49 GMT
I hadn't heard of this case, so looked it up and unsurprisingly it's more complex than just parents not being allowed to have strict Catholic views on gender. It seems the issue was the child had developed a long-term (over 2 years) severe eating disorder and social workers had identified the parents' stance on their gender identity as a major contributing factor as the child was self-isolating without food as a response. So they recommended the child be placed in a gender-affirming household rather than risk the eating disorder getting any worse. So it was basically a desperate move to save a child's life.
Eating disorders are a mental illness, body/gender dysphoria/dysmorphia are also mental illnesses. If the child refused to eat until they could get their leg amputated because their brain is telling them their leg is ruining their life, which is a very real thing but for some reason doctors DON'T just agree to lop off perfectly healthy limbs even if it means the patient is depressed, suicidal, etc., would the court relocate them to a house that allows them to mutilate themselves to be happy?
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Feb 24, 2024 18:20:26 GMT
It's a tricky one that and not one I have a fixed opinion on. For one thing there are still a huge amount secular medical experts who consider circumcision more beneficial than harmful so it's not clear that it is actually hurting the child. If we did want to stamp it out, heavy-handed approaches can be seen as persecuting religious minorities like how some of the secularisation laws in France are seen by some as Islamophobic. With circumcision, the two main religious groups that practice it are Jews and Muslims. With Muslims, it's more a tradition than a hard and fast rule and it's done on slightly older children (usually around 7). So there probably is some capacity there to work with Muslim groups to discourage the practice as unnecessary. It's a bit more central in Judaism and done primarily to babies so that would be trickier. My problem with circumcision is that it is done primarily for ritual purposes on those who are too young to give consent. If the religious wish to mutilate themselves that is entirely up to them but let's at least keep it to the adults.
But the same is never said for people who decide children are old enough to know they want hysterectomies, penile mutilation surgeries to make phony vaginas, etc. Oh 3-4 years old is damn well old enough to KNOW they're the wrong sex, it's not a phase, children ONLY have phases for everything else, they KNOW it and they will NEVER change their minds. Don't let their brain reach adult development, don't let them figure out what their body is naturally going to develop into the many years after puberty, no, stop it before it starts. Take their choice away from them before they're even old enough to MAKE that decision.
|
|