Another reason to ban circumcision

[TylerDurden]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3047901/Babies-feel-pain-lower-threshold-adults.html

[jessica]

http://madsciencewriter.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-foreskin-why-is-it-such-secret-in.html

[dariorpl]

What do you mean, ban it?

I'm not going to circumcise my future sons when I have them, but if someone wants a circumcision they should be able to get it.

Once you get into the business of mandating what others must and must not do with their own bodies, there's no telling how far that will go.

I personally support child liberation, meaning children should have the same rights as adults do, at least since they gain the ability to communicate and understand concepts. But as long as things stay as they are and children are still considered to not have the same rights, then banning circumcision for children is unreasonable because the parents are already assumed to be taking those kind of decisions for their children. Transferring this power over to the State instead is a very bad idea.

In much of the world today, vaccinations are mandatory because the State claims to have ultimate proof that they are safe and necessary to prevent disease. The argument against mandatory vaccinations should not be based on the science, which is very flimsy indeed, but on the ethics of it. It's evil for the State to forcibly inject people with something they think is healthy, even if they were correct in their estimations.

Likewise it would be bad for the State to ban vaccinations, even if the mainstream medical community comes to agree that they are harmful and useless.

[TylerDurden]

Not a valid argument. It is reasonable to assume that babies do not want to be circumcised because they feel pain from the experience and certainly do not remotely comprehend why it should even be done. It would be reasonable to impose a ban on circumcision until the age of 18, or, even better, 21. In other words, an age where  the child is no longer under the control of the parents and can make his/her own informed  decisions up to a point, as to whether he needs to be circumcised or not.

[goodsamaritan]

What dariorpl meant was the concept of FREEDOM.

[political atheist]

i know somebody who was circumcised because he could pee... the skin was glued together... he could of die from not being able to pee...

[political atheist]

i know somebody who was circumcised at birth because he could pee... the skin was glued together... he could of die from not being able to pee...

[TylerDurden]

What dariorpl meant was the concept of FREEDOM.

A genuinely free society  only works if people are not allowed to infringe on the freedoms of others.If people, such as parents, are allowed to harm others on an arbitrary basis, then there is no real freedom at all.  Babies have a right not to be cut until they are grown up enough and educated enough to allow themselves to be circumcised.

[goodsamaritan]

You are driving in murky waters Tyler.
You are just the same other face of the anti-FREEDOM coin.

Parents want the freedom as PARENTS to act on what they feel is best with their children.
Just as we holistic parents do not want vaccines.
You can also state your case that conventional western medical minded parents have no right to vaccinate their own children.
Just as some countries now prohibit parents from spanking their own children.

[dariorpl]

Not a valid argument. It is reasonable to assume that babies do not want to be circumcised because they feel pain from the experience and certainly do not remotely comprehend why it should even be done. It would be reasonable to impose a ban on circumcision until the age of 18, or, even better, 21. In other words, an age where  the child is no longer under the control of the parents and can make his/her own informed  decisions up to a point, as to whether he needs to be circumcised or not.

A newborn baby trusts their parents to make the best decisions for them. It is the parents' responsibility to feed them the right foods, keep them at the right temperature and make sure they are safe from dangers. The parents can make mistakes, but so can the State. What's more, the parents can safely be assumed to have the babies' best interest in mind. The State has it's own interests in mind. Even if the State made the best decisions, we don't condone slavery simply because the slavemaster knows better than the slave what they should do with their time. Giving to the State the power to make these decisions, is the best way to ensure an enslaved society.

What's more, making restrictions on rights based on age necessarily distorts the natural path towards self determination and adulthood. As now children are not only concerned with making their own decisions and emancipating from their parents, but being legally allowed to make them and having to wait for an arbitrary age to emancipate from the State. I personally see no reason why a 3 year old should not be able to decide if they want a circumcision or if they don't want one. But if you're not going to allow them to make this choice for themselves, then certainly the responsibility and power to make it should be with their parents, not the State.

[TylerDurden]

Not exactly libertarian, to put it mildly. You are simply exchanging one type of tyranny for another. It is reasonable to assume that parents, not the State, have the right to control what gender or other characteristic their children will have as they ought to have control over their own genetic material, for example. It is not morally acceptable, however,  to deny freedoms to their own children on an arbitrary basis. Parents should not be dictators, just guardians of their children. I think a scale of responsibility should be allowed to children so that as they mature and become more educated about the world, they can make more informed decisions. So, at age  8, they should be allowed to consume alcohol in small quantities appropriate for their body mass, and so on with increasing freedoms up to the age of 21. Circumcision, for obvious reasons, could not properly be decided except by an adult who had had sexual intercourse for some time. So, 21 would be the best time to allow such a needless rite. One reason why circumcision has not been wiped out by now is because it is practised at birth, almost wholly. As a result, most circumcised men have not a clue and imagine, wrongly, that  circumcision makes no difference as they have no means to compare the 2 states. Being able to do so after they have had sex, means then and only then can they make a truly informed decision on the matter.