Speaking out against child mutilation is now a hate crime.

Let me get this straight, I illuminate how Dark Elf's examples of individuals forgoing freedoms is far removed from cultural values and somehow:

I'm the fool for pointing out the irrelevance of the examples,

I should be banned,

and yet I'm the one who has missed the point.


Sorry Caity, it looks as if the fucktard strain wasn't completely isolated.

 

I make no such claim, I merely suggest that the rights to free thought, free speech, and property (particularly the property) might not be the absolutes that can be applied to all cultures.

My qualm with claiming that those rights are unalienable lies in the fact that they strike me as too frivolous to be absolutes. Certainly, the right to express my thoughts freely is a comfort I enjoy, but I could get by without that privelege. It seems to me that any cultural absolute would have to be more vital than any of the rights suggested heretofore.

Also, I do not claim that anything and everything that a culture practices must be condonded. I claim that it is difficult to condemn any practice of a culture simply due to the fact that no cultural absolutes have been established.

 

Interesting discussion.

I agree much with GrimmHatter.

Cultural difference need to be considered in context. Of course that doesn't mean anything goes if it's a cultural norm. It'd be silly, I don't think many people would truely believe in cultural relativism.

Judging on the experience shared from those who are circumsized at their young age, having circumsized doesn't seem to have any impact on their qualify of life at all. And what Qabal said:

In any case, parant have to make a decision for their son when he's still an infant, at that time he has not the capability to choose whether to be circumsized. One may very well argue that, when the son grew up, he may prefer to have been circumsized at young age, because he recognized not doing so would put him in a social disadvantage, and he wants to undergo the surgury as young as possible where the bad effect is minimal. If curcumsize at an early age is not allowed as an option then it would be another instance of violating their freedom of choice.

 

Although he could not choose until then, his parant could choose for him if it was given as an option, he could choose to agree or disagree with his parant choice when he reaches adulthood. What when the child grew up, fully wished he had been circumcized at an early age, but it was not allowed as an option? Isn't it a form of violation to his freedom of choice? Of course, he could very well disagree with his parants choice, then he may claim his freedom of choice violated, and it appears a valid claim to me. Now this is a wierd scenario - both legalizing and banning circumcize can be said to encourage/discourage freedom of choice.

I should clear myself - I'm not supporting legal circumcize - I'm not clear enough on this but I can sympathize with the parant. I'm not so sure about the freedom of choice argument however, it seems convincing but at the same time confusing on closer inspection.

 

Hmm then how is it possible that legal circumcize violates freedom of choice? Since at the time they were circumcized they couldn't choose, and their choice in adulthood is not retroactive.

P.S. I need sleep, midnight here, sorry have to abandon the discussion.

 

It's seems more like the issue is with the religion than the people who follow it. In the case where circumcision is done on an infant because of religious belief, the decision was never the child's or the parents' to begin with. It was the decision of whatever god is the center of worship for that religion. If you're Catholic (or whatever other religion supports circumcision), you have a duty as a member of Catholicism to adhere to the followings of your religion and god and a responsibility to raise your children in the same light. You may be the largest advocate for free rights in the country, but if you're a Catholic at the same time, your responsibility to your child as a Catholic parent is to have your son circumcised whether he would have wanted it this way 18 years from now or not. If you are genuinely a religious person, then you can't just pick and choose what parts of that religion to follow, even if they contradict with other moral values. In fact, if they due contradict each other, you probably shouldn't be a member of that religion in the first place. So if you are, say, Catholic, you probably accept Catholicism and God's word (and thus circumcision) as the proper way to live life. If you are a genuinely loving parent, you would also want, according to your beliefs, what is best for your children as well. So why wouldn't that be the same religion as your own. It's every parent's responsibility to raise their children as capably as possible and sometimes that means making difficult decisions that may hurt them briefly, but will benefit them in the long run. It's not like you can just toss them in the woods when they're born and let them figure everything out on their own. To this day, I do not know one single person that's ever said "Geez I feel so inadequate because I don't have foreskin on my cock. Boy I sure do hate my parents for that." People have a resounding way of getting over superficial shit like that. And yes I think it's superficial, but that's just my opinion.

 

The Bible clearly says that the circumcision club can be entered into at any age. They were reciting the lines on TV on one of those Sunday morning Bible Reading shows last week.