Male Genital Mutilation

[Bubbles]

So the child themselves can't make that decision for themselves?

Not as a baby, no.

[Shaker]

Not as a baby, no.

So you wait until they're not-babies.

Also known as adults.

[Bubbles]

It's odd. Rose has argued - quite rightly - for children to have the freedom to choose their own friends rather than their parents choose. Yet she doesn't support their freedom to have their penises left unmutilated.

 I do, when it doesn't have parental consent. ( babies are too young to make their own choices) 

http://www.circumstitions.com/coerce.html#contrary


I don't agree with those.

[Bubbles]

So you wait until they're not-babies.

Also known as adults.

 It might happen, but those parents have to choose for themselves. I don't agree with bringing  laws to force the issue, on male circumcision.

I posted a link further up, a Jewish Doctor.

There is room for discussion,  but not if people are going to be " judgmental " and insulting about people's religion.

[Bubbles]

"The bigotry of the
anti-circumcision zealots
ESSAY: Today’s campaigning against circumcision is so dogmatic and intolerant it makes the old religions look enlightened in comparison."

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/12595#.WVvjUrHTWhA

[Nearly Sane]

"The bigotry of the
anti-circumcision zealots
ESSAY: Today’s campaigning against circumcision is so dogmatic and intolerant it makes the old religions look enlightened in comparison."

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/12595#.WVvjUrHTWhA

So how does this work as a statement against Harrowby Hall who objects to have been circumcised as an infant? surely you are being dogmatic to say it was fair enough though he had no choice? Why are you being so intolerant of his objection? Why do you want to dictatorially tell him his objection is worthless?

[Bubbles]

So how does this work as a statement against Harrowby Hall who objects to have been circumcised as an infant? surely you are being dogmatic to say it was fair enough though he had no choice? Why are you being so intolerant of his objection? Why do you want to dictatorially tell him his objection is worthless?

No, he's entitled to his opinion.

His opinion isn't worthless.

I don't think the article was aimed at Harrowby Hall.

[Nearly Sane]

No, he's entitled to his opinion.

His opinion isn't worthless.

I don't think the article was aimed at Harrowby Hall.

How does that work? The article states that campaigning against circumcision is intolerant. Are you saying that because it wasn't 'aimed' at HH then in his case you think the article is wrong?  In which case, given you think it is wrong, why cite it?

[Bubbles]

How does that work? The article states that campaigning against circumcision is intolerant. Are you saying that because it wasn't 'aimed' at HH then in his case you think the article is wrong?  In which case, given you think it is wrong, why cite it?

 I don't think it is wrong, I think it is aimed at a certain group of people, that doesn't include HH.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think it is wrong, I think it is aimed at a certain group of people, that doesn't include HH.

In what way isn't it wrong? It argues that people who campaign against circumcision are intolerant but somehow that doesn't apply to HH for you. What is the bit in the article that says it isn't intolerant for HH?

[Bubbles]

In what way isn't it wrong? It argues that people who campaign against circumcision are intolerant but somehow that doesn't apply to HH for you. What is the bit in the article that says it isn't intolerant for HH?

Read it again if you didn't understand it.

[Nearly Sane]

Read it again if you didn't understand it.

It appears you don't

[Bubbles]

It appears you don't

According to you.

[Nearly Sane]

According to you.

So you aren't going to answer the questions about HH in relation tonwhay you posted? Here they are again. In what way isn't it wrong? It argues that people who campaign against circumcision are intolerant but somehow that doesn't apply to HH for you. What is the bit in the article that says it isn't intolerant for HH?

Any answers?

[Bubbles]

So you aren't going to answer the questions about HH in relation tonwhay you posted? Here they are again. In what way isn't it wrong? It argues that people who campaign against circumcision are intolerant but somehow that doesn't apply to HH for you. What is the bit in the article that says it isn't intolerant for HH?

Any answers?

It isn't wrong because it's one way that events mentioned in it can be interpreted, and outlines some important points of the opposing viewpoint.

It isn't talking about routine circumcision and how men object to what has been done to them. It isn't saying that HH should have been circumcised.

I don't think it's making a point about HH at all.

It's making a point about the sheer spite aimed at that aspect of Jewish practice, it's making a point about the attempted dilution of Judaism.

I don't think any of the writers would be upset if non Jews objected to routine circumcisions and didn't have one.

I think the writers would empathise with how HH felt, as long as they felt their POV was understood as well.

It isn't aimed at HH.

Not unless he forces his opinion on others.

[Nearly Sane]

It isn't wrong because it's one way that events mentioned in it can be interpreted, and outlines some important points of the opposing viewpoint.

It isn't talking about routine circumcision and how men object to what has been done to them. It isn't saying that HH should have been circumcised.

I don't think it's making a point about HH at all.

It's making a point about the sheer spite aimed at that aspect of Jewish practice, it's making a point about the attempted dilution of Judaism.

I don't think any of the writers would be upset if non Jews objected to routine circumcisions and didn't have one.

I think the writers would empathise with how HH felt, as long as they felt their POV was understood as well.

It isn't aimed at HH.

Not unless he forces his opinion on others.

It's talking about people who are against circumcision. It makes no separation about oeooke who think UT's wrong for any reasons. So it is talking about HH and is precisely being judgemental about him .

[Bubbles]

It's talking about people who are against circumcision. It makes no separation about oeooke who think UT's wrong for any reasons. So it is talking about HH and is precisely being judgemental about him .

In your opinion.

I don't think so!

[Nearly Sane]

In your opinion.

I don't think so!

Why don't you think so? You posted a piece that says that people who campaign against infant circumcision are intolerant. HH campaigns against it. Ergo the piece thinks HH is intolerant.

[Bubbles]

Why don't you think so? You posted a piece that says that people who campaign against infant circumcision are intolerant. HH campaigns against it. Ergo the piece thinks HH is intolerant.

I told you why, I'm not going around in circles with you.

[Nearly Sane]

I told you why, I'm not going around in circles with you.

You wrote stuff that isn't in the article and is irrelevant to the absolutism that is in the article.

[ProfessorDavey]

... but those parents have to choose for themselves.

But they demonstrably aren't closing for themselves - they are choosing for another person.

If a father at the age of 30 decides to choose for themselves and have their own foreskin removed then that is OK with me (although I'd like appropriate regulation to ensure that there is proper consent and that the operation is performed safely). But that isn't what is happening here - the parents are making an irreversible decision to mutilate another person's penis without the consent of the affected person. That isn't right.

[Bubbles]

But they demonstrably aren't closing for themselves - they are choosing for another person.

If a father at the age of 30 decides to choose for themselves and have their own foreskin removed then that is OK with me (although I'd like appropriate regulation to ensure that there is proper consent and that the operation is performed safely). But that isn't what is happening here - the parents are making an irreversible decision to mutilate another person's penis without the consent of the affected person. That isn't right.

In your opinion.

Parents are allowed to make this choice on behalf of their son, because they think it is in his best interest. The medical authorities back them. That's why it's legal.

Parents have a right to give consent on behalf of a child to young to make the decision  themselves.

Unless the "medical authorities" change their mind on male circumcision and rule it's not in the child's best interest, it will stay legal.

[Shaker]

It's not 'medical authorities' who need to change their minds - not all of them support enforced circumcision - but legislators. They're the ones who decide what's legal or not.

[Bubbles]

It's not 'medical authorities' who need to change their minds - not all of them support enforced circumcision - but legislators. They're the ones who decide what's legal or not.

But they are driven by reports and medical research supplied by professional people and medical authorities. Most of whom don't object.

They don't pull that decision out of thin air.

[Bubbles]

It's not 'medical authorities' who need to change their minds - not all of them support enforced circumcision - but legislators. They're the ones who decide what's legal or not.

Also it's not "enforced" circumcision. It's male circumcision with the consent of parents.

Emotive language again.

Like the term " male genital multilation " the correct term is " male circumcision "

Perhaps instead of calling you a vegetarian we ought to re-label  you. " plant murderer"