Out of curiosity, clairobscure; you’ve repeatedly stated that you think circumcision should be “banned”. What, exactly, do you think would be an appropriate penalty for parents who choose to have their child circumcised?
How will the penalty he pulls out of his ass make any difference to the basic argument? What penalties do you have in mind for any particular form of child abuse (which is basically how clairobscur sees it)?
Are you talking about removal of the clitoral hood? If so, you think removing it from a little girl is “trivial?”
Your last sentence makes me totally unwilling to answer you.
Why don’t you go to the Pit where you will be perfectly free to call me a genocidal antisemite without having to hide this accusation behind a fig leaf?
Do you think removal of the male foreskin is trivial? That’s where, I’m quite certain, Malthus is coming from.
If I want to forbid you from whipping your children, would you also ask me if I want to also forbid you from choosing their primary school?
Slippery slope much?
Yes, another so subtle accusation of antisemitism. Because that’s obviously the only conceivable reason why someone would oppose mutilation of babies genitals, right?
And as I wrote previously the wide majority of people impacted by a ban on circumcision would be Muslims, not Jews. So it would make much more sense to accuse me of hating Muslims.
You’re asking me a question. I don’t know what you mean by saying he’s “coming from that question” when he made a statement regarding clitoral hood removal being trivial (if that is what he said). Maybe you can just wait for him to answer. Thanks.
Well, the punishment depends on the severity of the crime, and also on how likely it seems that the crime will be repeated in the absence of intervention. The parents could lose custody of their children, and in extreme cases be jailed or, if the abuse proves fatal, even executed.
As a general rule, nothing like that happens to parents who are caught beating or neglecting their child for the first time (again, with the exception of truly extreme cases); instead, they are placed under the supervision of social workers and, if the abuse doesn’t recur after a suitable time, removed from such supervision. The goal is not to punish the abuse, but to improve the functioning of the family so that it doesn’t happen again. We recognize that being removed from the parents’ custody, even if the parents are abusive, is extremely traumatic for children, and we reserve it for extreme cases.
But this makes no sense in the case of circumcision; a circumcised child is not at risk of being circumcised again. So, if there is to be any punishment at all, it would seem that it would have to be jail time or loss of custody, meaning that the law would then be regarding circumcision as not just equivalent to but worse than the average case of abuse or neglect. I was wondering if clair would be willing to go that far, or if he might admit that maybe he hadn’t really thought this “ban” thing through. But I see now he has found a convenient excuse to avoid doing either.
Nope. He was precisely saying that I’m opposing something trivial there. There’s nothing about parental rights in the sentence I was responding to :
[QUOTE=Malthus]
What you can’t get around is that trivial is trivial, and you can’t make any convincing argument why folks ought to care about it.
[/QUOTE]
And no, parents just don’t routinely decide to have pieces of their children cut off. A subset of parents decide to have a specific piece of their children cut off once. And nobody agrees that parents should be allowed to decide to cut off any other piece of their children. It totally stands out, and is contrary to what parents normally decide to do and to what parents are normally allowed to decide to do. It’s in fact pretty much exactly what parents never decide to do unless they don’t mind losing custody of their children.
I have no idea which particular form I’m being told at any particular time is “trivial”. Whatever form is being justly analogized to male circumcision I would assume. If the particular form being described isn’t “trivial” then it isn’t a just analogy to male circumcision.
This exchange demonstrates my point: that introducing FGM, which exists along a wide spectrum of practices, into an argument about male circumcision is deliberately obfuscatory.
Yes, if you are denying me the right to make a decision that will have no discernible long-term negative impact on my child whatsoever, it is reasonable to wonder where your desire for State interference in family affairs ends. Would you deny that if I allowed my child to live on donuts and pizza, as would be his preference, the medical consequences of that decision would be far graver than the consequences of circumcision? Would you agree that whether a child is adequately educated is going to have more of an impact on his quality of life as an adult than whether he is circumcised? So why wouldn’t I think that you would also demand the right to monitor my child’s diet to ensure it meets your personal standards?
Fine, consider yourself accused of hating Muslims. Or at least of being grossly insensitive to their culture and paternalistically presuming that they can’t be trusted to act in their own best interests. From the point of view of the target, that’s not really a significant difference.
The vast majority of circumcisions performed in the US are performed on kids who are neither Jewish nor Muslim. ITSM that, if you were motivated by an actual desire to reduce the prevalence of circumcision rather than by religious bigotry, you would be addressing your arguments to those parents, who are much more numerous and much more likely to be receptive to said arguments. And yet you keep harping on the Jews.
So Jews aren’t “normal”. Gotcha. But you’re not anti-Semitic.
And is that an admission that you think losing custody of the child would be an appropriate penalty for circumcision?
No, I think it should be exactly that. People practicing circumcision have excuses in the sense that they sincerely believe that they aren’t harming their children or even believe it’s beneficial for them. But, if they aren’t seriously sanctioned, they’ll keep circumcising. Parents circumcising out of habit (I’m circumcised, why Junior shouldn’t be?) would probably easily deterred by, say, a big fine. But people doing because of a feeling of religious obligation wouldn’t be. So, there would need to be pretty stiff sentences for deterrence.
Besides, I indeed do think it’s child abuse, and there’s no way to say “it’s forbidden because it’s child abuse” and “the punishment will be a two days suspended sentence” or whatever. Either circumcision is as serious as ear piercing and it should be allowed or worth a slap on the wrist, or it’s as serious as FMG and it should be punished accordingly. There isn’t really a middle ground here.
And yes, when the child dies as a result of circumcision (and it does sometimes happen, and I’m wondering what people saying circumcision is trivial do of this), it should of course be prosecuted as an involuntary manslaughter. Is there, once again, any similar action that wouldn’t be prosecuted as such if it results in the death of a child?
ETA : Wait a minute. You think that basically being called a nazi is “a convenient excuse”? I shouldn’t at all be bothered or feel insulted by it, and I’m just pretending because it’s convenient?
I disagree. Parents are “normally allowed” to decide to subject their children to all sorts of purely cosmetic surgery - for example, cosmetic orthodontia. As a child, I certainly was!
Normally, as a society, we have made a decision that such matters are left to the parents until the children are at an age to “assent” and then, when older, “consent”.
There are of course limits to the legal capacity of parents to consent to medical procedures on behalf of children: parents are prohibited from taking decisions that are demonstratibly and significantly not in the objective best interests of their children.
Your burden, then, is to demonstrate that male circumcision falls into this category. I submit you haven’t done so, and that is because you can’t.
In fact, the medical evidence is that male circumcision is a net health benefit.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/08/22/peds.2012-1989
In light of such evidence, I see no medical ethics problems with allowing parents to choose one way or the other, since the risks are trivial and the benefits, while also minor, outweigh the risks.
What? I’m not asking about what you you’re told “at any particular time.” I’m asking about what you told us. You said “at one far end of the spectrum it isn’t horrible - it is trivial.” What form of FGM is trivial and why do you believe that is so?
Obviously that depends on perspective. Two forms of circumcision can be justly analogous while one person thinks both forms are trivial while another thinks they aren’t.
Braces? Who considers that “surgery”?
Totally. Parents circumcising don’t act normally, because there’s no similar instance besides circumcision of parents deciding to cut off a piece of flesh on their children and being allowed to do so. If you’re so outraged at the idea of hearing that it’s “not normal” please show me the numerous examples of parents deciding to do something similar without any legal consequences attached. It’s very obviously an enormous, elephant-sized, exception to what parents normally feel they’re free to decide wrt to their children.
And no, it’s not antisemitic. Jews happen to practice circumcision. Muslims happen to practice circumcision. A subset of American parents happen to practice circumcision. None should get a break. It’s not antisemitic, it’s antiIwillcutthegenitalsofmychildrenifIfeellikeitic.
How about rings to extend a person’s neck? I don’t see how we can ever get rid of neck rings while we still allow cosmetic orthodontia.
ENOUGH!
Everyone back away from the sort of question that is a (not so) veiled accusation of anything. Let’s leave the words “you” and “your” out of the discussion from this point on.
Stick to discussing the topic in neutral terms.
Further, I see no serious point to the discussion of punishment for crimes, or even references to crimes. It is possible to discuss whether an action may be permitted or prohibited without jumping to the sentencing phase of a crime that has not yet been committed or even legislated.
[ /Moderating ]
I’m not the one you should be asking such detail, since I was responding to this:
I took **clairobscur ** at his or her word, that he or she was talking about “… a version of FMG that isn’t horribly damaging” (their emphasis).
Not sure why it matters so much to you, though - though it once again demonstrates that using FGM as an analogy doesn’t clarify, it obfuscates.
The only “perspective” here is that of my opponent, who has stated (according to them, repeatedly) that the version of FGM they are discussing “isn’t horribly damaging”.
Where did I say “braces only”?
Cosmetic orthodontia usually involves braces, but can also involve surgery - for example, as in my case, the removal of teeth, where tooth crowding was causing protrusion of the bite.
I think I’m repeating myself at this point, and will keep repeating myself if I go on. I said what I had to, I’m out. Whoever wants to hear will hear. Whoever wants to think I’m a nazi because if they didn’t think so they would have to admit that some people at least are genuinely bothered by circumcision instead of just being evil genocidal maniacs, and that maybe they should actually ask themselves difficult questions will keep thinking so.
Also, just noticed that I lost my Charter Member status :eek: