|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 01:07 AM February 8th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I am not Jewish, but I was circumcised as a baby in NY. The going reason was that it was cleaner, and it eliminated certain health problems later on in life. I do not agree with mutilating anyone without their consent. If the law was to be passed wouldn't it have to cover everyone? I am not knowledgable as to why the Jewish faith requires this. I know why doctors talk mothers into it. Perhaps someone can enlighten me? Anyway I think it should be passed. It was, and is my body. I am not about to have surgery to correct it now, and I do not miss what I never had as a sentient Male. But that and the fact that millions of Mothers were talked into "not" breast feeding their children should stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by whatever on 01:32 AM February 8th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I posted the above story. Here is what I found to be an excellent and insightful article on circumcision from a jewish woman who has a medical degree:
http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/goodman1999/
It explores the medical, psychological, sociological, and religious reasons for and consequences of circumcision. There are many reasons cited for circumcision in the Jewish faith, the main one being that G-d told Abraham to do it, it is a covenant with G-d. Also it is a very long standing tradition in Judaism. As I mentioned, however, I am against the practice as of now, and the article I linked to above articulates many of the reasons why and why I feel this may be consistent with my faith.
As far as the law applying to everyone:
The 1st amendment to the constitution, most commonly known for its clause on freedom of speech, also contains clauses regarding religion.
There are two:
One on establishment of religion, relating to the government favoring no one religion over another, and perhaps not favoring religion over non-religion and vice versa, and
The other on religious freedom, requiring that the government not impede upon a persons religious choice, beliefs and practices.
Like any protection in the constitution this right has limitations (for example one could not practice human sacrifice and we in America have outlawed polygamy), however, without a damn good reason and no less restrictive way of accomplishing its goal the government cannot make laws that prevent me from practicing my religion, this would presumably include circumcision.
Given what the likely rationale of the anti-circumcision law would be if passed, protection of infants based on their inability to consent to an unneccessary medical procedure preformed on the genitals that does carry with it some risks, which although unlikely are potentially devestating, there may not be an exception. Can't let an entire religion "harm" their children in the name of religious freedom. Can we?
But, then again, given the long standing religious signifigance of circumcision, its common acceptence in the US, where in the 60's 80% of males were being circumcised, and a history of anti-circumcision laws in other countries being passed for reasons of anti-semitism, you never know what the Supreme Court will do.
Hope that helps to answer your questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 12:58 PM February 8th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
If the thread of your argument, or explanation of why religions should be exempt from this law is followed, why would not Human sacrifice not be allowed in religions that actually do have a history of this? Mutilation of the Human body by surgicaly removing a sheath that is there for a reason is somewhat heinious, isn't it? So, if we are to make exceptions for one religion, why not another as in the case of polygamy? Aren't the "laws" of the land supposedly the rule, or is that if the religion has enough money and power to force their way? Kind of a slippery slope to be standing on if you ask me. Anyway, I am against the mutilation of babies period!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by MAUS on 04:40 PM February 10th, 2006 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
The first Jew. Ibrahim, was exile from the Caldean Empire for being a religeous dissident. He did not agree with the practice of sacrificing children to Baal. Circumcision was a ritual mutalation imposed on exiles to symbolicly show that they had been "cut off from their people". Instead of wearing this as a mark of shame it became an obligation.
In much the same way the African Ubanghi tribe deliberately mutillated their women with lip plates, neck coils and heavy ear rings in order to make them safe from slave hunters. This became obligatory "tradition" even though this tradition is less than 300 years old.
China has nearly half a billion males....but you could probably count the ones who have been circumsized as a "medical necessity" on your fingers.
Circumcision is a money grab for hospitals...that is all.
Women, including my own daughter, do it to their sons because in this day and age of tatoos and schrapnel as a fashion statement it is considered no more serious than piercing a little girl's ears.
Women prefer to see the glans penis exposed. There are rarely more than one or two fatalities or total destructions of the penis per year so what are these men's activists on about?
I can recall on many occassions how my lover has drawn back my foreskin in order to expose my glans penis....it feels really nice....I feel sorry for the men who will never experience it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bulldogo.1 on 01:41 AM February 8th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I have three sons to two different women and I had to fight tooth and nail with them over circumcission. I also had to put up with other peoples uninformed opinions and prejudices. With only one exception out of dozens, it was all females who were pro-circumcission. "It looks nicer", "It's cleaner" or "They wont miss it". How the fuck would they know? I am very proud to say that all my sons are fully intact males.
What amazes me is that when debating women over circumcission, I usually allude to the similarities with their argument over abortion. "It's my body and I will do what I want with it", they say. You know what? None of them get it. Moron's.
Bulldogo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 02:36 AM February 8th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
What amazes me is that when debating women over circumcission, I usually allude to the similarities with their argument over abortion. "It's my body and I will do what I want with it", they say. You know what? None of them get it. Morons
Absolutely right. Although I am pro-choice, I am so disgusted by the hypocracy over circumcision, that I would gladly support the Roberts-Alito-Scalia-Thomas position against abortion if pro-choice advocates do not oppose routine infant circumcision. Alito has held that the state may prevent certain forms of "expression" if it is done impartially; that is, if it applies equally to all members of society. If pro-choice advocates do not recognize a man's right to his own body, then why should we recognize a woman's right to her body? More generally, if the majority does not recognize a man's right to his own body, which includes the right to uninterrupted sexual development, just like women have, then there is no reason not to apply the principle gender neutrality impartially, and take away the right of a woman to her own body. In that case, I say, even though I am pro-choice: repeal Roe v. Wade. If they can't be impartial; if they don't get it that men have their reproductive rights too, and these include the right to uninterrupted sexual development, then they do not deserve to have the right to abortion protected by the federal government.
There is nothing morally wrong with making such a political threat: the question of abortion is morally unresolvable, so it has to be transferred to the legal and political system for resolution. That is, abortion is not a moral issue and the right to an abortion is not a moral right, it is a legal and political right. Therefore, it is not immoral to be for it or against it, and it is not immoral to make the credible threat that if at least ONE area of political reform of concern to men's rights activists is not supported by pro-choice activists, then MRAs will support the repeal of Roe v. Wade. It's our body. Every man has a right to uninterrupted sexual development. Take that away, and I see no reason to honor a woman's right to her own body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bulldogo.1 on 04:10 AM February 8th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Very well said Wilf. I, also am pro-choice, but the hypocrisy of women (mainly) who say that they have a universal right to do what they will with their body, then advocate for circumcission, forced paternal responsibility (child support), forced spousal support etc. is ludicrous. These things impact on men, so they don't care one iota.
Two years ago I was in a philosophy class at university, where one week we debated the killing of animals for food. Many women were against it because, they argued, we have no right to take an innocent animals life. The following week we debated abortion. Those same women got very angry with anyone who argued that we have no right to kill an innocent baby. Their argument? It's my body.
Bulldogo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Philalethes on 02:16 PM February 8th, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
... the question of abortion is morally unresolvable, so it has to be transferred to the legal and political system for resolution. That is, abortion is not a moral issue and the right to an abortion is not a moral right, it is a legal and political right.
I'm sorry, I disagree. It is precisely because abortion is a moral issue, and one easily decided by reference to moral values, that it has been referred instead to the sphere of politics and human "law." The truth is, there are no "legal and political rights" as opposed to "moral rights." A "right" is absolute. Legal and political "rights" are actually privileges, provided by the power of the State to its favored groups, usually by violating the rights of some other group. The "right" to abortion is a perfect example.
This is how you can tell a real Law from a fake "law" generated by human hubris: the real Law has no exceptions, it applies everywhere and to everyone. For instance, the Law of Gravity is a true Law. This is what Jefferson meant by "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." The Declaration of Independence doesn't say "All men are created equal, but some men are created more equal than others." Everyone -- with the possible exception of feminists, communists and others of their ilk -- would recognize such a statement as ridiculous.
The Delcaration of Independence is the basis of our Constitution and of all law in this country. Without its famous opening statement, the entire American enterprise would be meaningless. It is generally agreed that "All men are created equal..." can be taken to refer to all human beings, of both genders, all ages and conditions (including those, such as children and imbeciles, who are unable to care for themselves independently). The question of what "rights" can be claimed by all human beings on this basis -- and what are "rights" and what are instead "privileges" and the difference between the two -- there isn't room (or time) to discuss here. However, if this statement means what most agree that it means, and if we agree that the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit [not, be it noted, the guarantee] of happiness" follow from our equality of status from creation, then:
Either "do not kill" means "do not kill," or it does not. If it does not, what does it mean? If a law does not apply to everyone, everywhere, it is not a law. It may be a "rule," or a "statute," or a "legal precedent," or a "Supreme Court decision," but it is not a law in the true sense.
As usual, women want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a society wherein a woman is safe from attack by a rapist while walking down the street, but they also want a society where they can do whatever they want (e.g. enjoy sexual pleasure) without having to be responsible for the consequences. So they turn to human "law," created and applied by human men, who are subject to manipulation by female power. And they get what they want.
And society falls apart -- slowly but surely. Because a human "law" that violates the Law is a lie, and a society built on lies cannot survive.
I am not "anti-choice"; as a libertarian, I could hardly be against choice, which is how we exercise our freedom. But I recognize that true freedom requires responsibility. Freedom without responsibility is merely license. It is not an accident that a "license" is something you get from the State. "Roe v. Wade" is a license to kill. You can only believe it if the State -- the Golden Calf of our age -- is your G-d. If you believe that, then you will, in time, like all of us, reap what you have sown.
A woman has an absolute right to choose whether or not to engage in sexual relations. If the idea of "rights" has any validity, then one of the rights we have is the right to waive our rights in specific situations, by our own free will. We do so by agreement, by contract. For instance, a woman may voluntarily waive some portion of her rights by agreement, for instance a marriage wherein it is understood that both parties owe an obligation in sexual terms to the other. In any case, when a woman voluntarily engages in sexual relations, if she is an adult she has also volunteered to deal responsibly to any consequence that may result from her voluntary act.
For example: Say that I voluntarily invite into my home a person who is ill, and volunteer to care for that person until he is able to care for himself. Then a week later I decide the arrangement is too much trouble, and I simply dump the invalid out in the alley, where he dies. Would that be responsible behavior? It's my house, isn't it? Am I not "free to choose" who occupies my house?
Yes, but I had already chosen to invite the invalid into my house, and by so doing had assumed certain responsibilities, which must be seen to their conclusion. I have waived my absolute right of "choice," by my own free will.
Traditionally, women, like children and imbeciles, were not considered fully adult human beings. Women have long resented this. However, now that they have managed, after long struggle, to elbow their way into the realm of overt political power, what do they choose as their number one "issue"? The "right" to act in the most irresponsible manner possible: to destroy the life of another human being because they are unwilling to acknowledge responsibility for their own free-will actions.
If feminism is a religion, its first sacrament is abortion. In that light, abortion is clearly human sacrifice. What kind of religion is that?
As I've said before: Like any other American man of my and later generations, I was brought up to believe the whole feminist line. In the end, it has been the observed behavior of women themselves that has brought me to see the truth, and the wisdom, of the immemorial "patriarchal" view of women: they are, when left to themselves, not responsible. Like children, they cannot -- or at least do not take the trouble to -- see farther than their immediate impulses and desires. For their own good, they must be restrained.
"Misogyny"? No, just the truth. If you disagree, then show me.
No time to go further into this subject here. If you're interested in in-depth discussion, see this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 11:00 PM February 8th, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, I disagree. It is precisely because abortion is a moral issue, and one easily decided by reference to moral values, that it has been referred instead to the sphere of politics and human "law." The truth is, there are no "legal and political rights" as opposed to "moral rights." A "right" is absolute. Legal and political "rights" are actually privileges, provided by the power of the State to its favored groups, usually by violating the rights of some other group. The "right" to abortion is a perfect example.
This is false: abortion is not decidable on the basis of common morality (according to the accoung given by Bernard Gert). Abortion is a controversial issue: it is controversial in a way that most other moral controversies are not, with the possible exception oof animal rights. It is crucial to understand the source of the controversy, and therefore the reason why abortion is not morally decidable--unless one makes assumptions about who, besides moral agents, is protected by morality; such assumptions are so strong that there is no agreement on them, and this is precisely where any hope of the moral decidability of abortion breaks down.
Contrast this with the case of amputating a limb to save a life: this is not morally controversial. It's a tragedy, but it is not the subject of intense debate.
Virtually everyone agrees that moraliity protects moral agents: persons who understand what morality prohibits, requires, encourages, discourages, or allows. The abortion controversy concerns beings that are not considered moral agents: fetuses do not understand what morality prohibits, requires, encourages, discourages or allows. The abortion conntroversy is that significant numbers of fully-informed impartial rational persons disagree whether the scope of morality protects fetuses. If it does, then the rule do not kill would apply, and abortion would be immoral; if morality does not, then the moral rule do not kill would not apply, and abortion would not be immoral.
Because there are issues that cannot be decided by common morality, such as abortion (animal rights would be a close second, since it also turns on whether animals are protected by morality), moral philosophers have supplemented their moral theory with a political theory, which allows for matters that cannot be decided by common morality (which is close to what I imagine you connsider natural law) to be transferred to the legal and political system.
Arguing that abortion can be easily decided begs the question of which beings, beyond moral agents, morality protects. Saying that by switching moral codes you can decide abortion tells us nothing: by switching moral codes arbitrarily I could decide anything. Common morality will decide many issues; those that it cannot decide are transferred to the legal and political system, which has its own procedures. It makes sense, in such circumstances, therefore, to distinguish political rights (or privileges, if you wish) from moral rights (which are another way of referring to moral rules).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Philalethes on 12:27 AM February 9th, 2006 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Gosh, I hardly know where to start.
I've never heard of Bernard Gert, but this all sounds like an example of why, though my father was a professor of philosophy, I have never been attracted to that field of busy but fruitless endeavor. Sort of like an intellectual fog machine, which obscures rather than clarifies the truth.
Most of the time, in my observation, this sort of fog is generated by people who want to make something simple into something complicated, so they can find -- or pretend to find -- some loopholes through which they can get away with something.
Since I don't believe there is an "away," such an effort is of no interest to me. On the contrary, I try to clarify issues by examining what principles are involved -- similar to the libertarian practice of asking, in examining a "political question," "whose rights are being violated?" For instance, in the case of the "drug problem" it turns out that nobody's rights are violated if someone wants to take drugs. If you want to get stoned, since you own yourself you have every right to do so, and I have no right to force you to stop, even if I think it's stupid.
Actually, abortion has already been "decided" by "common morality": Roe v. Wade is what I would call "common morality." Just as 200 years ago common morality had decided that slavery was moral. "Common morality," based on self-interest, changes all the time. Like politics, and human "law," it's based on what people want to get away with, what they think they can get away with, what they think they can make agreements among themselves to allow each other to get away with.
I don't consider abortion to be a "controversial issue" at all. It's quite simple. Rabbi Hillel said: "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to others. That is the whole of the Law, the rest is merely commentary." The Dalai Lama says that all beings seek happiness and try to avoid suffering. I know that I prefer to avoid suffering, therefore I do my best not to impose suffering on others. To be deprived of life involuntarily is suffering -- at least by my definition; perhaps your "moral philosophers" would find some hairsplitting way to disagree.
I guess those are my "assumptions"; if so, make the most of them. That others disagree is not news to me, nor do I expect others to agree with me. Everyone is free to choose, and everyone will experience the consequences of es choices.
Nor is it news to me that I don't really fit in the definition of "virtually everyone." I'm not really concerned with making lists of who "morality" may or may not "protect"; so far as I'm concerned, all that's important is that my morality protect me, since I'm certain that I will reap what I have sown.
Neither do small babies, or, arguably, children before the "age of reason" -- six to seven years -- "understand what morality prohibits, requires, encourages, discourages or allows." Does that mean I am free to kill them? Well, I don't think so. Some do, I know; many "abortions" are performed, so I understand, by allowing viable, live-born babies simply to starve to death in another room. I thought it was pretty funny a few years ago when that high school girl was excoriated for stuffing her newborn baby in a trash can; if she'd only killed em an hour earlier -- while e was still in the womb -- she'd have been perfectly within the "law."
The idea that "significant numbers of fully-informed impartial rational persons disagree whether the scope of morality protects fetuses" clearly hinges on definitions of such terms as "fully-informed," "impartial," and "rational." In my view, anyone who can't -- or won't -- see that abortion is a crime simply cannot be described by any of these adjectives. Such people, I find, tend to be "ivory-tower" intellectual types who haven't encountered tangible reality any time in recent memory. Like the liberal who's a passionate supporter of "gun control" until he himself gets mugged.
No, what you seem to mean by "common morality" is exactly not what I mean by "natural law." What I mean by "natural law" is what is true even when you or I -- or Bernard Gert -- might not find it convenient or fun, such as a morality which restrains us from getting what we want because to do so causes harm to another.
Tacitus said, "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." Check out the Internal Revenue Code: it's something like four inches thick, yet nowhere in all those millions of words is a clear explicit statement that a private American citizen, exchanging his labor for value, must pay the "income tax." Instead, there are thousands of pages of obfuscation whose purpose is to thoroughly confuse honest working people and provide a generous living for politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers.
That's the "legal and political system" to which people refer such "controversies" as abortion, because they don't want to confront the simple truth.
"By switching moral codes arbitrarily I could decide anything." Exactly. Only it's not really arbitrary: abortion is referred to politicians precisely because the politicians can be relied on to decide on the basis of what people want rather than what's right. Politicians are for sale to the highest (or most numerous) bidder; what I call morality is not.
All this is just talk. What I'd really like to do is introduce Bernard Gert, or one of his intellectual fellows, to Gianna Jessen, and watch him try to convince her that, see, she really should have died when she was aborted, because, see, "significant numbers of fully-informed impartial rational persons disagree whether the scope of morality protects" people like her. Maybe when she gets her website up and running you might like to write her an email and see if you can convince her. There's a nice picture of her there; see if you can look her in the eye and tell her she ought to be dead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 02:41 AM February 9th, 2006 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
The idea that "significant numbers of fully-informed impartial rational persons disagree whether the scope of morality protects fetuses" clearly hinges on definitions of such terms as "fully-informed," "impartial," and "rational." In my view, anyone who can't -- or won't -- see that abortion is a crime simply cannot be described by any of these adjectives.
Then, as I have little time, I will confine my reemarks to ratinality--rational action, in particulat. This is defined negatively, as the negation of irrationality.
A test for objective irrationality:
Will your action cause, or signifiantly increase the probability of, you or anyone for whom you care suffering some nontrivial harm?
...................................../............ .............................................\
..................................Yes............. ...........................................No
....................................|............. ..............................................|
......................... Is there a reason................Your action is not (objectively)
..........................for your action?...................irrational.
.........................../...................... ...\
........................Yes......................N o
..........................|....................... ...|
..........Is the reason..............Your action is (objectively) irrational
.........adequate?
.........../...................\
.........Yes................No
...........|.....................|
Your action is......Your action is (objectively) irrational
not (objectively)
irrational
An action is rational if it is not irrational. This is not the same as moral. Moral behavior is rational, but the converse is false.
On my definition, I could agree with you that abortion is immoral (I don't: it's morally undecidable, on the basis of common morality, which is informal and not the formal and legal system which decided Roe v. Wade), and still disagree with you that abortion is irrational. Identifying morality with rationality has the effect of weakening morality, but I want to avoid digression.
We'd have to proceed one definition at a time. I agree that it is crucial to get these definitions straight. I suggest getting a copy of Gert's Common Morality: Deciding What To Do; all the terms are defined there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 02:50 AM February 9th, 2006 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
I have almost enough time to correct some typos.
Then, as I have little time, I will confine my remarks to ratinality. This is defined negatively, as the negation of irrationality.
A test for objective irrationality:
Will your action cause, or signifiantly increase the probability of, you or anyone for whom you care suffering some nontrivial harm?
...................................../............ .............................................\
..................................Yes............. ...........................................No
....................................|............. ..............................................|
......................... Is there a reason................Your action is not (objectively)
..........................for your action?...................irrational.
.........................../...................... ...\
........................Yes......................N o
..........................|....................... ...|
..........Is the reason..............Your action is (objectively) irrational
.........adequate?
.........../...................\
.........Yes................No
...........|.....................|
Your action is......Your action is (objectively) irrational
not (objectively)
irrational
An action is rational if it is not irrational. This is not the same as moral. Moral behavior is rational, but the converse is false. On my definition, I could agree with you that abortion is immoral (I don't: it's morally undecidable, on the basis of common morality, which is informal and not the formal and legal system which decided Roe v. Wade), and still disagree with you that abortion is irrational. Identifying morality with rationality has the effect of weakening morality.
We'd have to proceed one definition at a time--but my time is limited. I agree that it is crucial to get these definitions straight. I suggest getting a copy of Gert's Common Morality: Deciding What To Do; all the terms are defined there.
I will say one other thing: it's generally agreed by everyone that a fetus is protected after the second trimester; there is no question about infants or toddlers, even though they are not rational agents. I said there was disagreement about fetuses; I did not say, nor did I imply, that only moral agents are protected by morality. That's obviously false.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Philalethes on 09:48 AM February 9th, 2006 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Gee, thanks for going to all this trouble, but please, don't bother. I'm not really interested in such hairsplitting abstract disconnected "rationalism," which in my experience can ultimately be used to justify anything.
Probably the most "impartial, rational" person in this tradition in recent history was Josef Mengele, someone with whom I'd prefer to have as little in common as possible behaviorally. He made his choices, and I expect he'll spend a few thousand lifetimes balancing the books; I'd rather not go there.
As for what's "generally agreed by everyone," my morality is not subject to democratic review. Mostly I find that I disagree on fundamental points with the great majority of people. In my view, this world is in big trouble, and likely due for a major collapse -- on a scale of suffering few could even imagine if they tried -- within my present lifetime, precisely because of what is "generally agreed by everyone." Of course, that's just my opinion, but until I see some convincing evidence to the contrary, it's the best I can do.
Please read the final paragraph of my previous post; that's really all I have to say about the subject. Anyone -- including Mr. Gert -- who cannot truly, honestly, completely say that they wouldn't mind being aborted themselves is just indulging in intellectual masturbation with this kind of "objective, rational discussion."
And the same is true for circumcision. No pro-circumcision advocate can be considered "fully-informed" unless he/she has actually experienced, within living memory, being so brutally assaulted and maimed (it doesn't have to be a foreskin, but some significant, sensitive body part -- a thumb, an eye, whatever -- Dick Cheney's favorite torture technician could probably advise), and can honestly say they didn't mind it a bit. Such a person would be a highly dangerous sociopath, of course, but at least e'd be "rationally" credible on the subject of mayhem. Otherwise, such advocates are like the chicken-hawk journalists who're pumping up the war in Iraq, having themselves, of course, never experienced war first-hand at all.
They will, though, if not in this lifetime then in another. We reap what we sow, and all bills are paid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Philalethes on 10:16 AM February 9th, 2006 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, Wilf, your weblog looks good -- great list of resources. I don't know if your argument will convince anyone, but I don't suppose it can hurt. Good luck.
Me, I just hear the screams of the babies -- 3000 every day, while we're all being so cool and having these "rational, objective" discussions. While I am indeed an apostle of Reason, I understand that separating the Head from the Heart can be just as deadly as allowing our actions to be ruled by unreasoned Passion. In Buddhism it is understood that both Wisdom and Compassion are necessary, each in its proper place and relationship, to achieve true understanding and act skilfully. True Reason includes and does not harm the Heart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 03:14 PM February 9th, 2006 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
And the same is true for circumcision. No pro-circumcision advocate can be considered "fully-informed" unless he/she has actually experienced, within living memory, being so brutally assaulted and maimed
I don't consider them fully informed either. I noticed you looked at my weblog. According to common morality, which is the informal system people use to decide moral questions; e.g., cheating, and so on, and which is a relatively weak system of morality compared with religious codes of conduct, the common assumption that there are no moral consequences for choosing circumcision for your children is false (if you know there are bad consequences), simply because significant numbers of fully-iinformed, impartial (this means, impartial towards the group of beings morality protects with respect to the moral rules) rational (not irrational in the sense above) persons oppose the procedure. That's iif we conceded (and I do not concede) studies that show circumcised men to have lost sensitivity significantly (a recent Australian study does this), not including anecdotal evidence from hundreds of restoring men (I'm one of them).
I did read the final paragraph: it does nothing to resolve the moral undecidability of abortion. We might imagine now that we would not want to be aborted, and I assure you if we had those thoughts at the time we were being aborted, it would be a violation of moral rules, and I would be against it, because then we would be harming moral agents for certain. But there is no agreement whether fetuses are protected. Some say they are, some say they aren't. To a great extent, common morality seems hard-wired, so at best it can handle areas where there is general agreement--this is a huge area, but it isn't often discussed, because it isn't as interesting as the more intensely debated controversial issues. Thosee conntroversial issues get transferred to the legal and political system. Now the worst outcome for circumcision, inmy view, is that it is morally undecidable. However, I think that the disagreement is a disagreement over facts mostly. Some of us have taken the trouble to educate ourselves, and some have not. I think the ideological reasons (men can handle it or otherwiise deserve it, women cannot), are relatively minor. So in that case the issue is decidable, and I am against it on the basis of what I believe to be true, and on the basis of my own experience.
PS. Your comment about Mengele refers to rational but immooral behavior: rational, but not impartial towards the class of beings that morality protects, with respect to the moral rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 03:17 PM February 9th, 2006 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
In Buddhism it is understood that both Wisdom and Compassion are necessary, each in its proper place and relationship, to achieve true understanding and act skilfully. True Reason includes and does not harm the Heart.
If I lacked the passion to formulate an argument, which, incidentally, seems to convince people on the fence, I wouldn't have bothered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 09:19 PM February 9th, 2006 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
And now for some passion: I'm sick of this amorphous drivelling about how an attempt to reason rationally, using sophisticated accounts of common morality, means that I am somehow lacking in feeling. Sick to my stomach. How fatuously presumptuous of you to believe that I lack compassion.
In addition to "coldly" reasoned argument, I've written some (not so good) poetry on the subject of infant circumcision that has managed to attract comment from the British press--it was referred to as a "credibly shocking look at circumcision." Do you have a comparable intactivist achievement? If not, why not?
I've revised it a little since the comment appeared almost a year ago, in 2005.
They lost their rights by violating mine
Contempt for parents lost these days I find
And hatred for those circum-paedophiles
Who strapped me, gasping, to a circumstraint
Who tore off, like a nail from the nail bed
The foreskin from my neonatal glans...
My mother enjoyed my father intact;
Surely they desired the same for their sons?
"They did what was best," we like to believe;
Twenty-five percent less, minus the sleeve;
Pleasure diminished, to give and receive;
Lost structure and function, reason to grieve;
My bedtime ordeal: a struggle to breathe!
These days, whenever I think who they were
GENITAL TERRORISTS I shall aver!
Their history went the way of my skin:
Scarred tattered remnants, in memoriam.
Here's a link to the review.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Demonspawn on 03:26 AM February 10th, 2006 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
*****
Please read the final paragraph of my previous post; that's really all I have to say about the subject. Anyone -- including Mr. Gert -- who cannot truly, honestly, completely say that they wouldn't mind being aborted themselves is just indulging in intellectual masturbation with this kind of "objective, rational discussion."
*****
My mother was talking about my nephew once. Asked me, "wouldn't you miss him if he was aborted?" Thought about it for a second, and replied "No." She was aghast, until I explained to her that if he never existed, then I wouldn't be able to miss him.
Would I mind being aborted? Well until someone can bring back memories they had while in the womb, that will be an unanswered question.
Just wanted to further the "mental masterbation." ;)
--Demonspawn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 01:39 PM February 10th, 2006 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
I would say that if a fetus is harmed by persons who intended to abort it, and it survives, is born and suffers maladies caused by the attempted abortion, then the persons who made the attempt and who authorized the abortion are responsible for the harm they caused.
This does not resolve the morally undecidable status of abortion. It seems reasonable to hold that if you harm a being that would otherwise become a moral agent, and it does become a moral agent, you are responsible for the harm you caused the moral agent.
Example: a person in a coma who is not expected to come out of it is the subject of an experiment which would leave him disabled were he to come out of the coma. Somehow, he comes out of the coma, disabled. I would say the case is analogous--not identical, since in the first case tthe starting poing is a being that never was a moral agent; in the second case a person in a coma is not a moral agent, but was once a moral agent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by whatever on 02:12 AM February 8th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I posted the above story. Here is what I found to be an excellent and insightful article on circumcision from a jewish woman who has a medical degree:
http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/goodman1999/
It explores the medical, psychological, sociological, and religious reasons for and consequences of circumcision. There are many reasons cited for circumcision in the Jewish faith, the main one being that G-d told Abraham to do it, it is a covenant with G-d. Also it is a very long standing tradition in Judaism. As I mentioned, however, I am against the practice as of now, and the article I linked to above articulates many of the reasons why and why I feel this may be consistent with my faith.
I agree with bulldog, especially if he is not Jewish. The idea that "it looks nicer" could be a valid consideration in performing such a procedure on an infant is outrageous. Good job. Im a ways off from having kids but when I do my religion will add an extra dimension to the debate.
I expect some resistence from my parents and my now girlfriend's parents as well, but it ain't gonna be their kid.
I had this conversation with my girlfriend and although she has religious concerns she told me that if at that time I am still strongly opposed to it she won't fight me on it. I also told her that before she even considered having it done, she should see it done, see if she still wants to do that to her future baby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bulldogo.1 on 02:43 AM February 8th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
No I'm not Jewish. I'm a non-practicing Roman Catholic from Australia. There is and always was only a very small Jewish community here in Australia, but somehow, circumcission was almost universal here after WWII. Why? I don't really know, but I would think that it became a fashion because doctors said it was cleaner. But this has been proven untrue and still argument over circumcission goes on here in 2006. Because of the reasons I said earlier (looks nicer, he wont miss it). And, as I said earlier, it's women who argue for circumcission. That's how empathetic and caring the little darlings are.
Bulldogo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by SpikeRants on 09:36 AM February 8th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
My wife recently gave birth to our first child, a boy. Every time we went in to the hospital for any reason we had somebody ask if we were having him circumcised. I was always the one who said no. Loudly. I had one nurse try to argue back with me, and I simply said, "When he turns 18, if he wants to do it, I'll let him. It's not my decision to make, and I won't do it."
When the on-call pediatrician, a very nice and well educated Middle-Eastern man, came in to speak to us about my boy, he asked about circumcision. When I said no, I kind of expected a fight. He visibly sighed with relief and said "Good." He then went on to have a long discussion with me and my wife about the many cons of circumcision, and even told us for many of the 28 years he practiced in the US he refused to circumcise a baby. He started to recently because he saw many botched procedures where there was intense mutilation and he started doing it simply to protect those children, but still tries to talk people out of it.
He was trying to be neutral about the subject until he saw I was vehemently against it, and then he let us see his true feelings. He even cited a study from the US Army that said there are no benefits to a circumcision.
I liked that doctor. Good thing the doctor we chose for my baby is his protege and said "Good!" when we said no to his "snip-snip" question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Philalethes on 01:54 PM February 8th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
He even cited a study from the US Army that said there are no benefits to a circumcision.
I had to laugh. It was in fact the U.S. military, which forced circumcision on all recruits and conscripts in World War II, which gave the final push to make the practice universal in America.
I was born during that war, and was circumcised in the delivery room. My father, born in 1918 and delivered by his physician father, was not circumcised then, but I'm told by my mother (my father died in 1974, long before I became aware of the issue) that he had it done as an adult -- I'm guessing when he enlisted in 1941. "He said it was cleaner," my mother says. But who taught him that his body was not "clean"? Certainly not my uptiight harpy Victorian grandmother, who made life hell for her husband and sons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Philalethes on 02:24 PM February 8th, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
The Federal ban on female circumcision passed in the 1990s was directly aimed at Muslim families who were circumcising their daughters. Muslims who follow this practice definitely consider it mandated by their religion. So why don't they get a religious exemption? If they did, of course, the law never would have been passed in the first place.
Will such a bill -- mandating gender equality in circumcision prohibition -- pass? I doubt it. If it does, it will have to be qualified by some kind of exception for "religious" circumcision. But only, of course, for religious male circumcision. Why?
The Jews get a pass. The Jews always get a pass.
"All religions are equal, but some religions are more equal than others."
"Anti-Semitism"? No, just the truth. The truth could be different, if the Jews were willing to subject themselves to the same rules of conduct they are so enthusiastic about applying to others. Unfortunately, they are not. Examples abound, but here is not the place for that discussion.
In fact, one of the major proponents of universal male circumcision in 19th century America was the Jewish doctor Lewis Sayre. At the time, there was considerable sentiment among "liberal" Western European and American Jews for the idea of "assimilation" -- up to a point, anyway. They wanted Jews to "blend in" with the larger societies wherein they lived, so as to avoid persecution.
Since the practice of circumcision had long set Jews apart, one solution would be to make the practice universal -- to circumcise every boy, so that Jewish boys wouldn't look different. So this is what Lewis Sayre, and others, set out to do: impose the "blessings" of circumcision on all American males. And they succeeded.
Of course, the Jews were not about to give up their own tradition of blood-ritual child-sacrifice; they might shave their beards, "round the corners of [their] heads," work on the Sabbath, eat pork (as one liberal Jew once told me, "It's okay to eat bacon so long as the pig was circumcised"), but the one thing that nearly all Jews, including the most unobservant, are agreed on is infant male circumcision. They won't give it up, and they will regard any questioning of the practice -- even for gentiles -- as "anti-Semitism" -- and make a huge fuss about it.
Why not? It works.
Those familiar with the issues addressed on this website might recognize a certain parallel. "Both sexes are equal, but one sex is more equal than the other." It is not an accident that feminism is mostly run by Jewish women. Nor that any questioning of gross female privilege (a.k.a. "equality") evokes louds shrieks of "Misogyny!"
Why not? It works.
However, paradoxical as it may seem, I am not really in favor of a law outlawing circumcision -- for either sex. Haven't time to discuss the reasons here, but they can be found in a post I made on another forum a few years back.
But if it's going to be illegal to circumcise girls, then certainly the same protection should apply to boys. If this were anything even remotely approaching a sane world. Don't hold your breath.
Below are some links for information about circumcision. If you wish to consider yourself qualified to present an informed opinion on the subject, I'd suggest first spending at least an hour or two reading here:
Circumcision Information and Resource Pages
History of Circumcision pages
Intactivism Pages
In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child
This is only a beginning; there are many more Internet resources; check the links on these sites. And there are the Santa Fe Nurses, who declared themselves conscientious objectors to infant male circumcision fifteen years ago -- the only such group anywhere in America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by whatever on 10:37 AM February 9th, 2006 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
I would suggest being careful about grouping an entire religion into a stereotype as you have here. I admit that especially in todays political climate in the US and likely ever sice WWII there is more "favoratism" shown towards the jewish religion than some others, particularly Islam, not christianity.
However, saying things like the jews always get a pass and "they just wont give it up" is a generalization that Im sure would piss you off to no end of such a generalization were made about men.
I am jewish and opposed to circumcision, the rate of circumcision among jews is decreasing in countries such as the UK. If you'll notice, the article I posted that is opposed to circumcision is written by a jew. Obviously there is some debate in the jewish community on this matter. Not some massive jewish conspiracy to get everyone to cut the skin off their kids penis. The comments I made regarding anti semitism were not to suggest the bill being pressed for now would be anti semetic, rather only to pont out that our government often walks on eggshells with certain minority or religious groups and that the history of bans on circumcision in other nations in the past have been spurred by anti semitism, particularly those which made the penalty for such violations death.
Do I think there shold be a religious exception if the bill is passed, no I dont, it does not fit te courts rationale for religious exceptions given the reasoning for passing the bill if it goes throug. OMG, did a jew just say that? However, my point was that our court does not always follow its own reasoning and will often allow its decisions to be influenced by personal politics, or some abstract sense of political correctness, or natural justice.
Again you blanket statements about jews, refusal to give up their tradition, making a big fuss about it, regarding it as antisemitism, are offensive. Sure, some will resist such a bill, some may view it as antisemitism, but to stereotype as you have here is offensive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 10:23 PM February 12th, 2006 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
If religion is an issue, perhaps intactivists could form their own religion, in which it is forbidden to be circumcised or to circumcise others. Then, in accordance with the great American tradition of respecting religious freedom of expression, religious leaders of opposing attitudes regarding circumcision could at last address the matter on an equal footing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mens_issues on 02:33 PM February 8th, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately I found this in Reuters today. I'm not sure how to interpret this. However, an infant boy should be able to wait until age 18 anyway to make such a decision, whether or not it makes a difference in AIDS transmission.
Steve
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?typ e=healthNews&storyID=2006-02-08T185846Z_01_N083260 32_RTRUKOC_0_US-AIDS-CIRCUMCISION.xml
Male circumcision protects women from AIDS: study
Wed Feb 8, 2006 2:00 PM ET
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent
DENVER (Reuters) - Male circumcision, which has been shown to protect men from infection with the AIDS virus, appears to protect women, too, U.S. and Ugandan researchers reported on Wednesday.
Circumcising men reduced infections in their female partners by 30 percent, the researchers found. One said the difference may be related to the structure of the foreskin, which is removed in circumcision.
In the study of more than 300 Ugandan couples in which the man infected the woman, the researchers found that 299 women caught HIV from uncircumcised partners and only 44 were infected by circumcised men.
Circumcision also reduced the risk of infection with other sexually-transmitted diseases such as trichomonas and bacterial vaginosis, but not syphilis, gonorrhea or chlamydia, the researchers told an AIDS meeting in Denver.
Dr. Thomas Quinn of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore has been leading a team that studies 12,000 volunteers in Rakai, Uganda. They have been studying transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus that causes AIDS.
Last year they reported that circumcised men were less likely to become infected with HIV. Now, they told the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, it appears that among infected men, circumcision reduces the likelihood they will transmit the virus through sex.
They also presented more evidence that circumcision protects men. They reanalyzed previous studies and found that circumcision reduced the risk of HIV infection in men by 50 percent -- and by 70 percent in the highest-risk men.
The findings will have to be confirmed in other groups before being used as the basis for recommendations, Quinn said. However, he said, "early indications are dramatic." If borne out, for every 15 to 60 circumcisions, one case of HIV infection could be prevented, he said.
Circumcision's benefits may stem from the structure of the foreskin of the penis. Its inner lining, or mucosa, carries cells that are vulnerable to the AIDS virus.
"Also that mucosal layer does not have the thick keratin (skin) that the outside skin of the foreskin has," Oliver Laeyendecker, who worked on the study, said in an interview.
"Not only do you have more virus there because of the types of cells that are there, but the barrier is easier to go through from the man to the woman on that skin surface because it doesn't have to go through a lot."
The AIDS virus is transmitted by semen, blood and breast milk and via sex, shared needles or other contacts with infected blood.
Semen can transmit the virus, but levels in the semen drop over time, while remaining elevated in the blood, Laeyendecker said.
The theory is that the virus can pass in tiny amounts of blood in the foreskin. "Because of the nature of that membrane, because it is thin, because it is susceptible to micro-tears, you have a lot of openings," Laeyendecker said.
"Plus you have more cells with virus there, so it lends itself to being a more transmissible surface."
The AIDS virus infects close to 40 million people globally, most of them in Africa. It kills 3 million people a year and infects 5 million new people every year.
It is eventually fatal and there is no cure or vaccine, although drug cocktails can keep patients healthy for years. Laeyendecker said the Uganda volunteers have access to at least some of the drugs through a U.S. program.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Philalethes on 03:04 PM February 8th, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
This particular campaign started last spring, just the latest effort to find some reason to promote circumcision. If you read about the history (see the links in my post above) you'll see this has been going on for a century and a half at least: first circumcision was supposed to "cure masturbation," then it was for reasons of "hygiene," etc. etc.
Of course, to present just one example, involuntary infant mastectomy would certainly prevent breast cancer in women. But for some reason no one is seriously proposing this solution in the international press.
AIDS is a behavioral problem. Like they say in the joint, if you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.
Why is it that all biologists -- even female biologists -- will agree that in all other species sexual behavior is ruled by the female, her cycles and needs, yet when it comes to humans, suddenly females are the helpless victims of male oppression?
Once again, it's all men's fault, and the solution is to punish men. Better yet, go at them when they're too small to fight back.
Infant Male Circumcision is pre-emptive, surgical strike by stealth in the War Between the Sexes -- a war which I did not start, and which, I believe, can have no winner. But try to reason with an angry woman....
Note, please, that this article was written by a woman. This particular campaign, like the many before, has been addressed and exposed by anti-circumcision activists -- see the above links -- but the Matriarchy keeps spreading the lies, as it always does.
The real truth is that male circumcision (and the female version as well, though that's a little more complicated to understand) is simply an atavistic survival of the ancient age of Goddess worship -- that very same time which feminists regard as the lost Golden Age. However, even the most committed anti-circumcision activists are so far unable to face this truth.
"On the day of the goddess, those young men who wish to serve her slash off their genitals and run through the streets, holding in one hand their severed parts. Less ambitious devotees of the goddess think it good luck to be splashed with the blood of a new eunuch. This is not difficult; there is a lot of blood. Finally, exhausted, the self-made eunuch throws his severed genitals through the open doorway of a house, whose owner is then obliged to take in the creature and nurse him back to health.
"I saw one poor wretch throw his genitals at an open door. Unfortunately, he missed. He then proceeded, slowly, to bleed to death in the roadway, since it is considered blasphemous to come to the aid of a would-be priest of Cybele who has failed to find, as it were, a proper home for his sexuality. I have seen this ceremony a number of times in Babylon, as well as in Sardis. I have never understood the veneration that these nations have for Anahita or Cybele or Artemis or whatever name the voracious mother-goddess happens to bear." -- Gore Vidal, Creation (novel wherein a Persian philosopher/statesman travels about the world in the 5th century BCE)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:18 PM February 8th, 2006 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
It would also be interesting to know how many of the reported cases were actually circumcised out of that group as to how many weren't. If in fact the number of circumcised Men were not the same as the uncircumcised Men then this study is bogus, period. Also, it would be interesting to know the backgrounds of these Men as well. If the circumcised Men were as educated as much as the uncircumcised Men, because that would make a difference as well. Sounds like more fabrication to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Philalethes on 11:01 PM February 8th, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
There was a discussion of this bogus study on MANN last summer.
Note that the discussion was begun by a regular MANN contributor who happens to have a major blind spot on the circumcision issue; apparently he himself is Jewish, was subjected to this tender ritual, can't face the truth about it, and so grabs desperately at every opportunity to cite "proof" that circumcision is a good thing. Not an uncommon response among circumcised males, unfortunately. "Denial is not a river in Egypt."
Nevertheless, there was some good commentary in this thread. Scroll down near the bottom to "Same old cowshit" for my comments, and some useful links on the recurring efforts to promote circumcision by linking it with prevention of AIDS and HIV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 11:29 AM February 9th, 2006 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Breaking the chains of any "cult" is a difficult thing to do. At least this person is challenging the training that he has received, kudos for that. Posted a good post, and incited some good debate, kudos for that. The journey that we take if we endeavor to learn is a process, some are at different levels of that process than others. Kudos for him taking that process, instead of being a biological tape recorder! I don't care what tribe a person comes from, if they use their minds...........
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "Story