Norway debates banning male circumcision

[Mycroft]

I can understand being personally against circumcision, but what I can't fathom is being against others doing it if they see it as an important part of their cultural traditions.

 

[AdMan]

I can understand being personally against circumcision, but what I can't fathom is being against others doing it if they see it as an important part of their cultural traditions.

The issue is that it's being done to babies who don't have a say on the matter.

If you're 18, do whatever you want.

 

[Ryokan]

I can understand being personally against circumcision, but what I can't fathom is being against others doing it if they see it as an important part of their cultural traditions.

People can cut off bits of themselves all they want if you ask me. Cutting off bits of others, and especially babies, now that's something completely different.

ETA: I'm going to tread carefully here... Opponents to circumcision in Norway were very quickly labeled anti-semites.. But could it be that you're culturally biased, Mycroft? Have you sat down and really thought about the issue?

 

[Rolfe]

I can understand being personally against circumcision, but what I can't fathom is being against others doing it if they see it as an important part of their cultural traditions.

You seriously don't see why anyone is against people cutting off sensitive parts of small babies too young to consent?

Hell, we already banned cutting off puppies' tails, on no stronger welfare grounds.

Rolfe.

 

[Mycroft]

The issue is that it's being done to babies who don't have a say on the matter.

If you're 18, do whatever you want.

Speaking as someone who is circumcised, I can say I do not and have never felt to be harmed. If you want to claim I'm some sort of victim, it's a pretty tough sell to me.

ETA: I'm going to tread carefully here... Opponents to circumcision in Norway were very quickly labeled anti-semites...

For good reason. It's basically an attack on Judaism. It's not much different from France outlawing the burka, or Sweden outlawing minarets.

But could it be that you're culturally biased, Mycroft?

In what way?

I was circumcised by my not-so observant Christian parents. It wasn't done for religious reasons but just because it was the norm back in the mid 60's when I was born. Most of the people I went to school with were circumcised as well. I am unaware of any negative issues associated with it.

But if I were "culturally biased", as you suggest, what of it? Who are you to dictate what my cultural preferences should be? What gives you that right?

Have you sat down and really thought about the issue?

Yes, I have. There seems to be a new thread on it about once a year at JREF.

 

[Mycroft]

You seriously don't see why anyone is against people cutting off sensitive parts of small babies too young to consent?

Because you're so smart you're just gobsmacked by anyone who doesn't instantly agree with you?

Sorry Rolfe, doesn't work that way. If you want to outlaw something that causes very little harm yet is of enormous cultural significance to millions of people, I think you need more than that.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

In what way?

I was circumcised by my not-so observant Christian parents. It wasn't done for religious reasons but just because it was the norm back in the mid 60's when I was born. Most of the people I went to school with were circumcised as well. I am unaware of any negative issues associated with it.

But if I were "culturally biased", as you suggest, what of it? Who are you to dictate what my cultural preferences should be? What gives you that right?

You are culturally biassed because circumcision was the norm when you grew up. "Culture" is more than just religion.

And because you are, it's harder to see why it might not be a good idea, since you grew up thinking it was quite normal.

 

[Rat]

For good reason. It's basically an attack on Judaism. It's not much different from France outlawing the burka, or Sweden outlawing minarets.

I think it is, for the reasons that others have already outlined. That said, I'm uncomfortable with the ban on burkas, and I wasn't aware that Sweden had outlawed minarets.

 

[Ryokan]

For good reason. It's basically an attack on Judaism. It's not much different from France outlawing the burka, or Sweden outlawing minarets.

So I'm an anti-semite. Heh. Sadly, this argument has pretty much put an end to banning circumcision in Norway.

I was circumcised by my not-so observant Christian parents.

Forgive me, for some reason I was under the mistaken impression that you were Jewish.

If you want to outlaw something that causes very little harm yet is of enormous cultural significance to millions of people, I think you need more than that.

A baby boy died here last month because of it. He would be alive today if the suggested laws had been in place, and could've chosen to get circumcised when he was old enough to choose for himself. I'm not sure what we would have lost with those laws.

But I think you have made up your mind once and for all, as have I, so I don't think further discussion would benefit either of us.

 

[Rolfe]

Because you're so smart you're just gobsmacked by anyone who doesn't instantly agree with you?

No, because I'm a vet who has engaged in the animal welfare debate surrounding mutilations, and I can see it's a no-brainer that the procedure would be banned if it was being carried out on pets or farm animals. I happen to think babies are more important than puppies or lambs.

Sorry Rolfe, doesn't work that way. If you want to outlaw something that causes very little harm yet is of enormous cultural significance to millions of people, I think you need more than that.

I think you'll find that one can. All it takes is the legislation. The debate is whether the legislation should be enacted. There is no question that it COULD be enacted.

Rolfe.

 

[Mycroft]

You are culturally biassed because circumcision was the norm when you grew up. "Culture" is more than just religion.

And because you are, it's harder to see why it might not be a good idea, since you grew up thinking it was quite normal.

So somehow my personal experience with the subject invalidates my opinion on it?

That doesn't make sense to me.

You might as well say that someone who grew up eating whale blubber or fried locusts is "culturally biased" because they don't understand how other people find those foods yucky.

So I'm an anti-semite. Heh. Sadly, this argument has pretty much put an end to banning circumcision in Norway.

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not calling you anything. I can't read your mind and only know your thoughts from what you write here.

Having said that, if you can't see how banning circumcision would be an attack on Judaism then there is something wrong with your reasoning. Just like Saudi Arabia attacks Christianity by obstructing the construction of new churches, just like Sweden attacked Islam by outlawing minarets, and France attacked Muslims by banning the burka. Attacking the practices of people is an attack on the people.

Forgive me, for some reason I was under the mistaken impression that you were Jewish.

I certainly don't mind speaking for Jewish people. What gives you the right to tell me or anyone our cultural values are wrong? We have a practice here that does very little harm, does some good, is of enormous cultural significance to millions of people...who are you to dictate to others what their choices should be?

 

[AdMan]

We have a practice here that does very little harm, does some good, is of enormous cultural significance to millions of people...who are you to dictate to others what their choices should be?

So wait until the boy turns 18 and stop making the choice for him.

 

[Ryokan]

I certainly don't mind speaking for Jewish people. What gives you the right to tell me or anyone our cultural values are wrong? We have a practice here that does very little harm, does some good, is of enormous cultural significance to millions of people...who are you to dictate to others what their choices should be?

People try to persuade each other that values, cultural or otherwise, are wrong all the time. It is, for example, a fundamental part of politics. If arguing for political change is 'dictating to others what their choice should be', then so be it.

(I might also add that I'm the one arguing for individuals to have a choice, while you're the one taking that choice away.)

But I'm sure it would be easy to find an issue where the shoe is on your foot, where you argue against a cultural value that is important to millions.

Are you against female genital mutilation?

 

[Craig4]

I can understand being personally against circumcision, but what I can't fathom is being against others doing it if they see it as an important part of their cultural traditions.

Some cultural traditions are better than others.

 

[cyborg]

I can understand being personally against circumcision, but what I can't fathom is being against others doing it if they see it as an important part of their cultural traditions.

What if it were the Spartan tradition of leaving babies to survive a night on a cliff face? Does that cultural tradition have a right to be allowed?

 

[rustypouch]

What if it were the Spartan tradition of leaving babies to survive a night on a cliff face? Does that cultural tradition have a right to be allowed?

Or the tradition of foot binding?

 

[Mycroft]

What if it were the Spartan tradition of leaving babies to survive a night on a cliff face? Does that cultural tradition have a right to be allowed?

Or the tradition of foot binding?

Oh why stop there? Let's go to ancient Maya where the custom was to run a string covered in broken glass through the urethra of the king to create pain induced hallucinations to foretell the future.

All these customs are just like removing a piece of skin during infancy so the person doesn't even remember it.

 

[Mycroft]

Some cultural traditions are better than others.

True. And if the tradition in question were slavery, I'd be opposed to it. But that's not what we're talking about here.

People try to persuade each other that values, cultural or otherwise, are wrong all the time. It is, for example, a fundamental part of politics. If arguing for political change is 'dictating to others what their choice should be', then so be it.

Persuade all you want, maybe over time you and people who agree with you will change the custom. When you move to invoke the government to force your point of view, you cross the line into oppression.

(I might also add that I'm the one arguing for individuals to have a choice, while you're the one taking that choice away.)

That's pure sophistry. In every parent/child relationship it's the parent who makes the choices. You might just as well argue that parents shouldn't take their children to church or teach them their values until the child can make a choice at the age of eighteen.

Are you against female genital mutilation?

Define your terms. Exactly what practice do you refer to here?

 

[linebreak]

The inclination to save the defenseless (in this case babies) from harm is tempting. The practice of circumcision isn't baseless, though, and even if you yourself don't find significance in the values that lead to circumcision, that's not necessarily cause for taking action against it.

The solution to "let kids get circumcised at 18 if they want" doesn't really work as an appeasement for Jews. The Jewish religion has precise requirements on circumcision. It's breaking the rules to not have the procedure at 8 days old -- no compromising.

As an atheist, I understand the perspective that doesn't see delaying the process as a big deal, but having grown up Jewish and around Jews much more observant than I was, to ban circumcision is to take away something much more than the slightly (term used delicately) inhumane procedure.

As Mycroft says, growing up circumcised does not make me angry at my parents. Is that bias? Of course. So are all of my opinions.

Saving a culture from its own practices is weird. I agree with some bans like this, but it's a continuum. If a culture beheads every other newborn as a sacrifice, I would agree with stopping it (but I bet some people would not). It makes sense TO US to impose our morals on others, because, well, they're our morals. We don't just see them as OUR morals, of course -- we think of them just as morals. Period. It's hard to know that other peoples don't share those same morals.

Some people agree with the ban. Some don't. I think in this case, the ban wouldn't be right.

For those in agreement with the ban: Do you see the ban as a trivialization of Jewish morals?

 

[cyborg]

All these customs are just like removing a piece of skin during infancy so the person doesn't even remember it.

You're right - I am likely to forget I am circumcised at some point I suppose.

What about removing an eye? An arm? What types of things can you remove from a newborn and what things can you not and what criteria do you use to decide in which pile which belongs?

Kinda of the point here with the whole: "cultural considerations shouldn't allow you to permanently change a person in a way they didn't consent to or require."

You are saying that there are some permanent changes you can make to a person for purely cultural reasons. And you are further saying that there are some cultures that you won't include in that consideration. What are they? Why are they?