San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

[Izawwlgood]

To go back a bit;

I gotta say, Izzawlgood, you've been a bit... willfully ignorant of that.

Listen Griifin, I've addressed why I feel the 'make no change to your children without their consent' is a perfectly valid stance to have, and said why I disagree with it. I've also focused on why making arguments that rely on comparing circumcision to cutting off a finger tip a straw man. If someone can show me that circumcision has a negative effect, aside from relying on the circular argument that circumcision is in and of itself a negative effect, we'll make some headway with that line of argumentation.

But it's not if the child is okay with it.

This line of discussion hinges on the notion that children, let alone infants, have rights. I understand that people feel they do, and I disagree.

[Torchship]

This line of discussion hinges on the notion that children, let alone infants, have rights. I understand that people feel they do, and I disagree.

Am... am I reading this correctly? Like, no rights whatsoever? I could beat my kids and it's cool, 'cause they're kids? I could set them on fire or rape them all day?
Is there a point where these right-less creatures gradually phase into normal humans?

I assume that I must be misinterpreting this, because if not then I can safely say that this is the oddest moral position that I've ever encountered.

[Dark567]

This line of discussion hinges on the notion that children, let alone infants, have rights. I understand that people feel they do, and I disagree.

I mean, clearly they have some rights, just less then adults. I mean its not okay to kill an infant.

Ninja'd by Torchship.

[Izawwlgood]

This line of discussion hinges on the notion that children, let alone infants, have rights. I understand that people feel they do, and I disagree.

Am... am I reading this correctly? Like, no rights whatsoever? I could beat my kids and it's cool, 'cause they're kids? I could set them on fire or rape them all day?
Is there a point where these right-less creatures gradually phase into normal humans?

I assume that I must be misinterpreting this, because if not then I can safely say that this is the oddest moral position that I've ever encountered.

Nope, kids don't have rights. They have protections. Child abuse laws, as I see it (and legally, may be wrong), are not aimed to support a child's rights to not be abused, but to protect children from abuse. It is clearly, obviously, not ok to beat your children because that has a clear and obvious negative effect on them. I feel it is acceptable to circumcise your boys because it has no clear and obvious negative effect on them.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

And how does a right differ from a protection?

[yurell]

Children don't have right? I think you'll find the UN disagrees. And I'm glad for it.

[natraj]

Most of the world thinks otherwise about children having rights. Of course, the US is a pretty horrible place, but.

Oops, ninja'd.

[Torchship]

Nope, kids don't have rights. They have protections. Child abuse laws, as I see it (and legally, may be wrong), are not aimed to support a child's rights to not be abused, but to protect children from abuse. It is clearly, obviously, not ok to beat your children because that has a clear and obvious negative effect on them. I feel it is acceptable to circumcise your boys because it has no clear and obvious negative effect on them.

Hurm, okay, that would make sense. A minor question, though: why do you bother to differentiate between the concepts of "rights" and "protections"? Is there any functional difference between the two?

Ninjas, everywhere.

[Williks]

Nope, kids don't have rights. They have protections. Child abuse laws, as I see it (and legally, may be wrong), are not aimed to support a child's rights to not be abused, but to protect children from abuse. It is clearly, obviously, not ok to beat your children because that has a clear and obvious negative effect on them. I feel it is acceptable to circumcise your boys because it has no clear and obvious negative effect on them.

Isn't the whole unnecessary removal of a piece of someone's body a pretty clear negative effect? You're cutting someone. There is all this blood and shit. Pain is involved. Does it only count if it's long-term negative effects? Is there then a certain number of times I can beat a child, whereby it is statistically unlikely to have any long-term negative impact?

I guess I'm just failing to see how cutting someone is not in and of itself a negative effect.

[Izawwlgood]

And how does a right differ from a protection?

Legally, I have no idea. Semantically, I would argue that the difference is such that children, let alone infants, cannot conscientiously object to things their parents want of them (barring things that are damaging). A child cannot say "I will not go to the school you are sending me to" or "I will not go to the religious place we are going to" etc.
Emancipated minors are a different story, arguably, a unique example.
But aside from ensuring that children are not abused, and that children go to educational institutions, I think their lives are more or less completely at the control of their parents. If a parent demands a child enters a spelling B, or play a sport or an instrument, the child cannot cite some UN regulation and be exempt.

Isn't the whole unnecessary removal of a piece of someone's body a pretty clear negative effect?

I would say no, and the existing scientific data would suggest the answer 'inconclusive'. That's the point I've been trying to make; if you want to claim that modifying a child against their will is wrong, then I completely understand that position, and simply disagree with it. If however, you want to claim that circumcision is in and of itself wrong, I feel that you need to come up with some proof.

[Williks]

I would say no, and the existing scientific data would suggest the answer 'inconclusive'. That's the point I've been trying to make; if you want to claim that modifying a child against their will is wrong, then I completely understand that position, and simply disagree with it. If however, you want to claim that circumcision is in and of itself wrong, I feel that you need to come up with some proof.

You're really going to have to explain this metric you are using. If we are talking long-term negative effects then sure, I can see that it might be inconclusive. But there is a short-term, immediate negative effect, and that is that you are cutting someone. I think most people would agree that having someone cut you against your will is a Bad Thing™. Can you explain to me why it isn't a bad thing to cut someone? Is there a certain degree of pain is acceptable? How large a wound can be inflicted?

Long-term harm might be more meaningful in a certain way, I suppose. But that doesn't stop us from protecting people (children included) from immediate harm as well.

[Izawwlgood]

I would suggest that because the pain is fleeting, measures are taken to minimize it, and it is not repeatedly inflicted, it is acceptable.

[curtis95112]

I would suggest that because the pain is fleeting, measures are taken to minimize it, and it is not repeatedly inflicted, it is acceptable.

So you believe that the difference between inflicting pain once and inflicting it repeatedly are not only quantitative but qualitative?
Also, I might be able to agree that the pain is acceptable, but in return for what? The parents' happiness?

[Williks]

I would suggest that because the pain is fleeting, measures are taken to minimize it, and it is not repeatedly inflicted, it is acceptable.

But it's not acceptable. At least, not on a broader legal scale. It's classified as assault. The cut may not be life threatening, it will bleed, you'll need to bandage it, and there'll be a scar once it heals, but that doesn't make it not assault. So, clearly society has decided that cutting people against their will is wrong. Is the wrongness lessened if the person who cut you thinks they have a really good reason to do so?

Apparently only if it's circumcision. You don't see this as being entirely inconsistent?

[tzvibish]

The vibe I'm getting from this thread is that religious freedom is good and well until you don't agree with it.

You believe that circumcision is mutilation and/or abuse. As has been mentioned before, Science hasn't reached a conclusion on this, and there is plenty of data that goes each way. I believe that it is not mutilation. My religion ascribes specific religious benefit to such a procedure that you believe is barbaric. That's your belief. In such a situation, where there is no scientific/cultural/social/religious consensus, governments cannot be expected to intervene.

On the topic of children's rights, I completely agree with Izawwl on this. If children had rights, they wouldn't have to ever listen to their parents. If they felt that a spelling bee was detrimental to their well-being, they could sue the parents in a court of law. Since we agree that children, up until a certain age, are incapable of making informed decisions about their own well-being, we apply protections instead of rights. This means that parents have a right to make decisions for their children, as long as certain protections aren't violated. This is why ear piercing, braces, restorative surgery, etc. are allowed to be decided upon by a parent. As soon as a protection is violated (abusive behavior, neglect, etc.) the government has a right to investigate the claims, and prosecute the parents. The child has no say in this (other than being a witness).

That said, the only way that a government could intervene in a circumcision is if there was evidence that protections have been violated. Since this hasn't been proven, the government has no say. I'm sorry that you feel that circumcision is barbaric, but I feel that corporal punishment is barbaric also, and I don't see the government having any right to stop a parent from disciplining with "physical reinforcement" (as long as it isn't permanent or abusive), and I'd argue that corporal punishment is just as scarring on the psyche as circumcision is on your penis (I've had a subtle, baseless, and counterproductive terror of my father since I was a child).

[curtis95112]

The vibe I'm getting from this thread is that religious freedom is good and well until you don't agree with it.

You believe that circumcision is mutilation and/or abuse. As has been mentioned before, Science hasn't reached a conclusion on this, and there is plenty of data that goes each way. I believe that it is not mutilation. My religion ascribes specific religious benefit to such a procedure that you believe is barbaric. That's your belief. In such a situation, where there is no scientific/cultural/social/religious consensus, governments cannot be expected to intervene.

A specific religious benefit means nothing to the rest of us. Freedom of religion means nobody will interfere with you believing what you want, and following through with actions as long as they don't hurt anyone else. This discussion is about whether the "anyone else" includes your children.

On the topic of children's rights, I completely agree with Izawwl on this. If children had rights, they wouldn't have to ever listen to their parents. If they felt that a spelling bee was detrimental to their well-being, they could sue the parents in a court of law. Since we agree that children, up until a certain age, are incapable of making informed decisions about their own well-being, we apply protections instead of rights. This means that parents have a right to make decisions for their children, as long as certain protections aren't violated. This is why ear piercing, braces, restorative surgery, etc. are allowed to be decided upon by a parent. As soon as a protection is violated (abusive behavior, neglect, etc.) the government has a right to investigate the claims, and prosecute the parents. The child has no say in this (other than being a witness).

That said, the only way that a government could intervene in a circumcision is if there was evidence that protections have been violated. Since this hasn't been proven, the government has no say. I'm sorry that you feel that circumcision is barbaric, but I feel that corporal punishment is barbaric also, and I don't see the government having any right to stop a parent from disciplining with "physical reinforcement" (as long as it isn't permanent or abusive), and I'd argue that corporal punishment is just as scarring on the psyche as circumcision is on your penis (I've had a subtle, baseless, and counterproductive terror of my father since I was a child).

I would argue that forced circumcision should fall under abusive behaviour. It hurts for no good reason. What better reason do you need?

[setzer777]

If you are against circumcision, then don't have your children circumcised. However, unless you were yourself circumcised without your consent and you now resent it, I don't think your opinion of what potential damage it could do to a person is relevant. Only those who would say they were circumcised against their will have the right to say they are a victim themselves. I don't think anyone has a right to declare victimization for anyone else. And without victims there is no crime.

As someone who was circumcised as an infant and has never had a problem with that, I feel like those who argue against circumcision are trying to make me feel like a victim. Just because I was circumcised before I had a say in it shouldn't rob me of the right to choose it for myself now, which I do. Discussions over the ethics of circumcision always upset me because it feels like people telling me that my parents did some horrible thing to me, and I don't feel that way. I think that's my decision.

I know this was early in the thread, but since I see this a lot I just wanted to add as counterpoint: I was circumcised without my consent and I wish I hadn't been. I wouldn't choose it for myself. Don't usually see a point to bringing that up in these arguments, because anyone can question how rational my feelings on the subject are. I'm not even arguing that it should be banned, just against the idea that no circumcised guy ever wishes he hadn't been.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

And how does a right differ from a protection?

Legally, I have no idea. Semantically, I would argue that the difference is such that children, let alone infants, cannot conscientiously object to things their parents want of them (barring things that are damaging). A child cannot say "I will not go to the school you are sending me to" or "I will not go to the religious place we are going to" etc.

I don't see where you're talking about rights, where you're talking about protections, and where you're saying that there's a difference between them.

I would suggest that because the pain is fleeting, measures are taken to minimize it, and it is not repeatedly inflicted, it is acceptable.

And I suggest that, because I'm eating an apple right now, I'm the Prince of Saturn. Your conclusion isn't at all obvious from these criteria, and so you're going to have to show why it follows. Why should it matter if pain is fleeting and not repeated? I still have reason to complain if someone walks up and slices me. And I don't think it can be accurate to say that someone who has the moral option to not cause pain, but does it anyway, is taking measures to minimize pain. Minimizing pain in everyday language entails not cutting someone's dick.

[Dauric]

The thing is that the definition of religion is in the process of changing from something that defines a physical community that one is born in to, to a choice one makes as to what community (if any) they desire to belong to.

The circumcision as an alteration of the body is a ritual that links the subject to the religion of their parents. It's not so much about the pain inflicted (though that certainly may be a valid issue), but rather that the child is marked as belonging to a specific community, in an age where membership in such a community is increasingly a matter of individual and informed choice.

So the question is: Would Christian parents have the right to tattoo: "Property of Christ" on their infant child in some otherwise nondescript location? If that child later becomes an atheist, or Buddhist, or Wiccan, what is the effect of having that tattoo?*

*Making the assumption in the hypothetical that the tattoo cannot be removed, even though tattoo removal is somewhat routine these days, as circumcision isn't really all that reversible. The hypothetical also assumes a relatively concealable tattoo (IE: somewhere on the pelvis, not splashed across their forehead).

Potential barbarism of the practice itself aside, is it... trying to word this correctly... Is it -still- acceptable in the light of modern sensibilities to force an individual to bear the ritual bodily alterations that mark them as a member of a certain group, even though they may voluntarily renounce membership in that group later when they gain the right of complete autonomy over themselves?

[folkhero]

Potential barbarism of the practice itself aside, is it... trying to word this correctly... Is it -still- acceptable in the light of modern sensibilities to force an individual to bear the ritual bodily alterations that mark them as a member of a certain group, even though they may voluntarily renounce membership in that group later when they gain the right of complete autonomy over themselves?

In the United States at least, circumcision is very common with non-Jews. In fact, I'd wager that their are a good deal more non-Jews circumcised in the US than Jews, so circumcision doesn't really identify a male as Jewish.

[Dauric]

Potential barbarism of the practice itself aside, is it... trying to word this correctly... Is it -still- acceptable in the light of modern sensibilities to force an individual to bear the ritual bodily alterations that mark them as a member of a certain group, even though they may voluntarily renounce membership in that group later when they gain the right of complete autonomy over themselves?

In the United States at least, circumcision is very common with non-Jews. In fact, I'd wager that their are a good deal more non-Jews circumcised in the US than Jews, so circumcision doesn't really identify a male as Jewish.

Probably bad wording on my part, but my concern is less with specific group X, or even group affiliation at all really, but more that the individual* in question bears permanent alterations to their body, alterations that could potentially be done later in life if they so chose but cannot be undone once done, because of the choices of their parents.

*And I'm specifically avoiding saying "The Child", because I'm not dealing with the effects as a child, I'm more concerned with the long-term, IE: Setzer777's post above.

[tzvibish]

The vibe I'm getting from this thread is that religious freedom is good and well until you don't agree with it.

You believe that circumcision is mutilation and/or abuse. As has been mentioned before, Science hasn't reached a conclusion on this, and there is plenty of data that goes each way. I believe that it is not mutilation. My religion ascribes specific religious benefit to such a procedure that you believe is barbaric. That's your belief. In such a situation, where there is no scientific/cultural/social/religious consensus, governments cannot be expected to intervene.

A specific religious benefit means nothing to the rest of us. Freedom of religion means nobody will interfere with you believing what you want, and following through with actions as long as they don't hurt anyone else. This discussion is about whether the "anyone else" includes your children.

So, we've determined that the actual right to be circumcised isn't something that can changed by the government. Great, now we can move on the children issue.

On the topic of children's rights, I completely agree with Izawwl on this. If children had rights, they wouldn't have to ever listen to their parents. If they felt that a spelling bee was detrimental to their well-being, they could sue the parents in a court of law. Since we agree that children, up until a certain age, are incapable of making informed decisions about their own well-being, we apply protections instead of rights. This means that parents have a right to make decisions for their children, as long as certain protections aren't violated. This is why ear piercing, braces, restorative surgery, etc. are allowed to be decided upon by a parent. As soon as a protection is violated (abusive behavior, neglect, etc.) the government has a right to investigate the claims, and prosecute the parents. The child has no say in this (other than being a witness).

That said, the only way that a government could intervene in a circumcision is if there was evidence that protections have been violated. Since this hasn't been proven, the government has no say. I'm sorry that you feel that circumcision is barbaric, but I feel that corporal punishment is barbaric also, and I don't see the government having any right to stop a parent from disciplining with "physical reinforcement" (as long as it isn't permanent or abusive), and I'd argue that corporal punishment is just as scarring on the psyche as circumcision is on your penis (I've had a subtle, baseless, and counterproductive terror of my father since I was a child).

I would argue that forced circumcision should fall under abusive behavior. It hurts for no good reason. What better reason do you need?

But that's the thing. Part of religious tolerance is that If I believe that it has positive benefits, and you can't tell me that it is definitely abusive, I am in my rights to make that decision for my child. I think ear piercing is painful and unnecessary, and the government can't step in there either. You use the word "force" like anything you decide for your child isn't forced. Of course it's forced, that's what raising a child is. making them go against what they think is pleasurable to make them better people (You "have to" share, even though you think that toy should be yours). My religious belief tells me that making a minor incision at 8 days is part of making you a better person (religiously). I'm well aware that the vast majority of the world disagrees with that statement. But unless you can tell me that pain = abuse, you have no grounds to interfere.

[Williks]

But that's the thing. Part of religious tolerance is that If I believe that it has positive benefits, and you can't tell me that it is definitely abusive, I am in my rights to make that decision for my child. I think ear piercing is painful and unnecessary, and the government can't step in there either. You use the word "force" like anything you decide for your child isn't forced. Of course it's forced, that's what raising a child is. making them go against what they think is pleasurable to make them better people (You "have to" share, even though you think that toy should be yours). My religious belief tells me that making a minor incision at 8 days is part of making you a better person (religiously). I'm well aware that the vast majority of the world disagrees with that statement. But unless you can tell me that pain = abuse, you have no grounds to interfere.

Religious tolerance does not grant an individual free reign to do anything they wish with their child. Your religious freedom extends to yourself, not necessarily any progeny you may have. Prayer healing, for example. There have been cases of courts ruling parents do not have the right to deny their child medical treatment even if they believe their prayers will be successful. Your religious freedom does not grant you the right to harm another individual.

[setzer777]

I am so happy that I will never again be a child...

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

But unless you can tell me that pain = abuse, you have no grounds to interfere

that's an interesting opinion. It's such a shame I don't share it.

[tzvibish]

But that's the thing. Part of religious tolerance is that If I believe that it has positive benefits, and you can't tell me that it is definitely abusive, I am in my rights to make that decision for my child. I think ear piercing is painful and unnecessary, and the government can't step in there either. You use the word "force" like anything you decide for your child isn't forced. Of course it's forced, that's what raising a child is. making them go against what they think is pleasurable to make them better people (You "have to" share, even though you think that toy should be yours). My religious belief tells me that making a minor incision at 8 days is part of making you a better person (religiously). I'm well aware that the vast majority of the world disagrees with that statement. But unless you can tell me that pain = abuse, you have no grounds to interfere.

Religious tolerance does not grant an individual free reign to do anything they wish with their child. Your religious freedom extends to yourself, not necessarily any progeny you may have. Prayer healing, for example. There have been cases of courts ruling parents do not have the right to deny their child medical treatment even if they believe their prayers will be successful. Your religious freedom does not grant you the right to harm another individual.

Circumcision != withholding medical treatment.

Keep in mind, I can't go on a circumcision rampage on society. I can make a decision for my child that does involve some level of pain (braces, ear piercing, inoculation, restorative surgery, etc.) if I believe that the procedure is beneficial. Since there is no Science to prove me that it is inherently a destructive operation (as Sourmilk put it, it's kinda neutral), I am still within my rights.

But unless you can tell me that pain = abuse, you have no grounds to interfere

that's an interesting opinion. It's such a shame I don't share it.

I would go so far as to say if you withhold all pain from a child, it is a form of abuse. Not saying you need to go out of your way to cause pain, that's abuse, just that it's not inherently bad to feel pain as a child.

[Williks]

Circumcision != withholding medical treatment.

Keep in mind, I can't go on a circumcision rampage on society. I can make a decision for my child that does involve some level of pain (braces, ear piercing, inoculation, restorative surgery, etc.) if I believe that the procedure is beneficial. Since there is no Science to prove me that it is inherently a destructive operation (as Sourmilk put it, it's kinda neutral), I am still within my rights.

Right, I never said it was.

I think science would very much prove that it's destructive in that you are removing a piece of tissue from a person. You are destroying that piece. There is pain and blood and scarring. This is harm by definition. You believe that harm to be justified. I was then responding to the claim that your religious beliefs would grant you the right to impose harm upon another individual.

[Dauric]

But that's the thing. Part of religious tolerance is that If I believe that it has positive benefits, and you can't tell me that it is definitely abusive, I am in my rights to make that decision for my child. I think ear piercing is painful and unnecessary, and the government can't step in there either. You use the word "force" like anything you decide for your child isn't forced. Of course it's forced, that's what raising a child is. making them go against what they think is pleasurable to make them better people (You "have to" share, even though you think that toy should be yours). My religious belief tells me that making a minor incision at 8 days is part of making you a better person (religiously). I'm well aware that the vast majority of the world disagrees with that statement. But unless you can tell me that pain = abuse, you have no grounds to interfere.

Religious tolerance does not grant an individual free reign to do anything they wish with their child. Your religious freedom extends to yourself, not necessarily any progeny you may have. Prayer healing, for example. There have been cases of courts ruling parents do not have the right to deny their child medical treatment even if they believe their prayers will be successful. Your religious freedom does not grant you the right to harm another individual.

To expand/change direction with this idea: Concepts and ideas can be unlearned (children do this routinely every summer...). If an individual raised in faith X decides on their own that the faith of their parents isn't something they're comfortable with they're able to learn new ideas, or rather they've been able to learn new ideas to change their mental processes. There's a malleability with a child's exposure to thought by their parents. Physical alteration lacks the same malleability and the choice of the child's parents will stay with them to their grave.

Parents have the right, the duty even, to teach their children to behave acceptably in society, however modern societies value the choice of the individual to make decisions for themselves when they reach the age of majority. When the child becomes an adult (and actually for a number of years beforehand) they can make the decision to ignore the ideas they've been taught, to adopt a different definition of what it means to be a "better person". To make physical alterations to an infant -completely- robs them of the decisions related to that physical change later in life.

Edit:

Essentially the point of contemplation I have is this: Do the rights of the parents while the child is a child allow them to do things that prevent the future, adult, individual from exercising their own rights in due time?

[Izawwlgood]

I think science would very much prove that it's destructive in that you are removing a piece of tissue from a person.

Yet science has very much found that any such claim is inconclusive at best. A quick look over any bit of medical data examining the long term effects of circumcision will tell you that any positive or negative effects are not statistically significantly found.

[gmalivuk]

Okay, so there are no long-term medical effects either way. Let's pretend that's true for the moment.

But there's still the short-term effect of pain and bleeding and scarring, and there's still the long-term effect of you permanently removing a part of your child that they may have wanted to keep if given the choice. Those are both still negative consequences of circumcision.

[Williks]

I think science would very much prove that it's destructive in that you are removing a piece of tissue from a person.

Yet science has very much found that any such claim is inconclusive at best. A quick look over any bit of medical data examining the long term effects of circumcision will tell you that any positive or negative effects are not statistically significantly found.

Speaking only about whether circumcision is destructive or not, it very much is a long-term effect. The foreskin is gone, destroyed. But again, long-term negatives are only one potential problem. You are still undeniably causing immediate and short-term harm. Something which I think absolutely requires reasonable justification.

[Izawwlgood]

Yes, again, one of the effects of circumcision is that the child is circumcised; I'm not debating that. I'm pointing out that there's nothing that suggests that that is an intrinsically bad thing.

As for the pain experienced during, I would suggest there are plenty of things that parents do to their children that are painful, without their consent, that are perfectly acceptable. As pointed out, it is perfectly acceptable to piece a child's ears, to make them get braces, and to participate in physical activities which may change their growth/development. I would also suggest that the reason circumcision is done at birth or 8 days in the case of a bris, is because the pain a very newborn will experience will not be remembered.

[Williks]

Yes, again, one of the effects of circumcision is that the child is circumcised; I'm not debating that. I'm pointing out that there's nothing that suggests that that is an intrinsically bad thing.

If not circumcision than what? It's non-consensual, occasionally religiously-motivated harm. What definition of "bad" does this not fall under?

As for the pain experienced during, I would suggest there are plenty of things that parents do to their children that are painful, without their consent, that are perfectly acceptable. As pointed out, it is perfectly acceptable to piece a child's ears, to make them get braces, and to participate in physical activities which may change their growth/development. I would also suggest that the reason circumcision is done at birth or 8 days in the case of a bris, is because the pain a very newborn will experience will not be remembered.

I would argue that ear piercings should also not be performed on infants. Braces have real medical benefits and are there to correct teeth misalignment and deformity. That is not the same as removing a natural, intended body part. Braces are more akin to a medically necessary circumcision. And physical activity? You're really reaching with that one. I think you're conflating some pretty disparate situations.

[Izawwlgood]

If not circumcision than what? It's non-consensual, occasionally religiously-motivated harm. What definition of "bad" does this not fall under?

The bolded is the part I have problems with, which I thought was obvious.

Braces have real medical benefits and are there to correct teeth misalignment and deformity.

Sure they do, but lets be honest, braces are also given to kids who simply have crooked teeth. Because Americans like the idea of straight teeth, and investing 2-5 grand in straightening your teeth is something that we think is cosmetically reasonable to do, more so as a sign of wealth and attractiveness. I think that's pretty wonky, but have certainly bought into the whole paradigm; I find straighter teeth more attractive.
There are certainly instances braces are worn for medical reasons, but I wager those are approximately as few and far between as cases where circumcision is required for medical reasons.

And physical activity? You're really reaching with that one. I think you're conflating some pretty disparate situations.

My parents required I play a sport every year starting when I turned 8. I've broken bones and have scars from it. Is that 'abuse'?

[DSenette]

The vibe I'm getting from this thread is that religious freedom is good and well until you don't agree with it.

You believe that circumcision is mutilation and/or abuse. As has been mentioned before, Science hasn't reached a conclusion on this, and there is plenty of data that goes each way. I believe that it is not mutilation. My religion ascribes specific religious benefit to such a procedure that you believe is barbaric. That's your belief. In such a situation, where there is no scientific/cultural/social/religious consensus, governments cannot be expected to intervene.

A specific religious benefit means nothing to the rest of us. Freedom of religion means nobody will interfere with you believing what you want, and following through with actions as long as they don't hurt anyone else. This discussion is about whether the "anyone else" includes your children.

So, we've determined that the actual right to be circumcised isn't something that can changed by the government. Great, now we can move on the children issue.

On the topic of children's rights, I completely agree with Izawwl on this. If children had rights, they wouldn't have to ever listen to their parents. If they felt that a spelling bee was detrimental to their well-being, they could sue the parents in a court of law. Since we agree that children, up until a certain age, are incapable of making informed decisions about their own well-being, we apply protections instead of rights. This means that parents have a right to make decisions for their children, as long as certain protections aren't violated. This is why ear piercing, braces, restorative surgery, etc. are allowed to be decided upon by a parent. As soon as a protection is violated (abusive behavior, neglect, etc.) the government has a right to investigate the claims, and prosecute the parents. The child has no say in this (other than being a witness).

That said, the only way that a government could intervene in a circumcision is if there was evidence that protections have been violated. Since this hasn't been proven, the government has no say. I'm sorry that you feel that circumcision is barbaric, but I feel that corporal punishment is barbaric also, and I don't see the government having any right to stop a parent from disciplining with "physical reinforcement" (as long as it isn't permanent or abusive), and I'd argue that corporal punishment is just as scarring on the psyche as circumcision is on your penis (I've had a subtle, baseless, and counterproductive terror of my father since I was a child).

I would argue that forced circumcision should fall under abusive behavior. It hurts for no good reason. What better reason do you need?

But that's the thing. Part of religious tolerance is that If I believe that it has positive benefits, and you can't tell me that it is definitely abusive, I am in my rights to make that decision for my child. I think ear piercing is painful and unnecessary, and the government can't step in there either. You use the word "force" like anything you decide for your child isn't forced. Of course it's forced, that's what raising a child is. making them go against what they think is pleasurable to make them better people (You "have to" share, even though you think that toy should be yours). My religious belief tells me that making a minor incision at 8 days is part of making you a better person (religiously). I'm well aware that the vast majority of the world disagrees with that statement. But unless you can tell me that pain = abuse, you have no grounds to interfere.

as previously stated, religious freedoms don't come without modifiers. you're allowed to practice your religion however you see fit, until it effects someone else.

it' is almost globally accepted in the civilized world that female circumcision is a bad thing. virtually all civilized countries ban the practice.

the procedure is often done when the female child is very very young, so, surely they won't remember the pain incurred. it's got lasting effects in that a portion of the genitals have been removed. and it causes changes (drastic) to the way sexual intercourse feels when the child becomes of age (since it's kind of the point of the procedure).

so, you know, it's a REALLY drastic version of male circumcision. meets the same criteria. but, yeah, totally, if someone's religion were to require female circumcision we should TOTALLY let them do that

[Williks]

The bolded is the part I have problems with, which I thought was obvious.

But you haven't offered any counter to the argument. You've simply stated there aren't any conclusive long-term negative effects.

Sure they do, but lets be honest, braces are also given to kids who simply have crooked teeth. Because Americans like the idea of straight teeth, and investing 2-5 grand in straightening your teeth is something that we think is cosmetically reasonable to do, more so as a sign of wealth and attractiveness. I think that's pretty wonky, but have certainly bought into the whole paradigm; I find straighter teeth more attractive.
There are certainly instances braces are worn for medical reasons, but I wager those are approximately as few and far between as cases where circumcision is required for medical reasons.

I don't necessarily think that braces are always a positive idea. But I also feel that the age at which most kids get braces, they've enough mental capacity to be given the option themselves. Just as I don't think infants should have their ears pierced, but I also don't feel an individual needs to wait until they're legally an adult to consent to that procedure. In any case, there is still the distinction between what is a deformation (teeth are supposed to fit together in a particular way) and a natural body part.

My parents required I play a sport every year starting when I turned 8. I've broken bones and have scars from it. Is that 'abuse'?

You don't see the difference between enrolling your child in sports which has a myriad of positive benefits (physical fitness, improving social skills, making friends, etc) which might also result in injury, and specifically sending your child to a physician who will cut a piece of him off with no real positive effects? This is what I was referring to when I said, you're conflating wildly different situations.

[Malice]

But that's the thing. Part of religious tolerance is that If I believe that it has positive benefits, and you can't tell me that it is definitely abusive, I am in my rights to make that decision for my child.

as previously stated, religious freedoms don't come without modifiers. you're allowed to practice your religion however you see fit, until it effects someone else.

it' is almost globally accepted in the civilized world that female circumcision is a bad thing. virtually all civilized countries ban the practice.

the procedure is often done when the female child is very very young, so, surely they won't remember the pain incurred. it's got lasting effects in that a portion of the genitals have been removed. and it causes changes (drastic) to the way sexual intercourse feels when the child becomes of age (since it's kind of the point of the procedure).

so, you know, it's a REALLY drastic version of male circumcision. meets the same criteria. but, yeah, totally, if someone's religion were to require female circumcision we should TOTALLY let them do that

[gmalivuk]

As pointed out, it is perfectly acceptable to piece a child's ears

No, it isn't. There've been numerous people in this very thread who've already said so, but apparently you either keep missing that or ignoring it.

the pain a very newborn will experience will not be remembered.

So if I decide to waterboard you but then ensure that you won't (consciously) remember it later, it becomes totes okay?

[Shivahn]

the pain a very newborn will experience will not be remembered.

So if I decide to waterboard you but then ensure that you won't (consciously) remember it later, it becomes totes okay?

We're all going to be dead sometime, I don't think you need to bother ensuring it isn't remembered.

[Izawwlgood]

so, you know, it's a REALLY drastic version of male circumcision.

As pointed out, there are different types of FGM. The mildest of which has a distinctly negative impact on sexual function, the worst of which has a significantly worse negative impact on sexual function. Female circumcision and male circumcision are NOT equivalents for the purposes of this discussion. They are equivalents in terms of 'procedures done to genitalia', which is to say having a tumor removed from your brain is the same as having your appendix removed, because 'both involve the removal of tissue'.

You don't see the difference between enrolling your child in sports which has a myriad of positive benefits (physical fitness, improving social skills, making friends, etc) which might also result in injury, and specifically sending your child to a physician who will cut a piece of him off with no real positive effects?

Of course I do, but I also see the similarity in which neither of them represent a choice on the part of the child. In short, there are things that parents are able to force their children to do, and as long as the child is not harmed in the long term, I think parents should be allowed to continue doing them.

But you haven't offered any counter to the argument. You've simply stated there aren't any conclusive long-term negative effects.

This is where I think a disconnect is occurring for me in this debate; I'm claiming that circumcision has no negative effects, and people are claiming that circumcision is a negative effect. I'm claiming that things with no negative effects are acceptable, and people are claiming that circumcision is a negative effect.

But I also feel that the age at which most kids get braces, they've enough mental capacity to be given the option themselves.

Yeah, I'd be curious to see how many children with braces made that decision for themselves.

(Re:Pierced ears)No, it isn't. There've been numerous people in this very thread who've already said so, but apparently you either keep missing that or ignoring it.

I've definitely missed it, but I'll go through and look for it. I feel that piercing a child's ear is perfectly reasonable; it represents minimal pain, is more or less reversible, and doesn't have any negative effects.

So if I decide to waterboard you but then ensure that you won't (consciously) remember it later, it becomes totes okay?

A curious point, I'll have to think about. My gut reaction is to say no, obviously, but I think part of that has to do with the notion that it would be something you repeatedly do to me, under the guise of memory wiping me after...

Honestly, I'd say that the process of circumcision in a religious context has a purpose, a meaning, whereas randomly waterboarding me doesn't. Circumcision leaves a mark that serves as the covenant between God and Abraham, and within the/various faith/s, whereas waterboarding me and memory wiping me, in this context, is just something you're drawing a parallel to for the purposes of inflicting pain and having me forget (which is akin the procedure of circumcision), but is devoid of purpose, of meaning.

That said, the 'purpose or meaning' argument isn't one I personally care about; in an ideal world, there would be no social taboo for circumcision (none of this 'it looks more normal' or such), and parents could decide whether or not to circumcise their boys as objectively as possible, and only those who felt it was part of their culture or religion would bother. Which is, I suppose, how we got into this debate in the first place.