reply to post by ShadeWolf
It's not your buisness to decide whether or not you mutilate your child.
This is really a gray area.
It's not exactly the child's choice, either. I'm circumcised. Sure - being a reasonable person, I wonder what it would be like to not have been -
but by that same token, it is not a choice that can be made later on. It's a much more complicated and risky procedure later on in life (and really
only necessary post-natal in cases of acute phemosis of the foreskin preventing it from retracting properly) - so it's not really something that can
be left on and then chosen later.
One of my brothers was born with a slight defect, his urethra pointed 'down' - perpendicular to the usual axis shared with the shaft. My parents
chose to allow the doctors to do some surgery to correct the issue (so he wouldn't have to stare down his penis to pee correctly).
But maybe he would get a kick out of it, now. Or maybe he would have been laughed at by his peers (to his expense).
He knows nothing different. I know nothing other than being circumcised. It's difficult to say what one is really missing out on in any case - if
it's really possible for someone to 'miss out' in either case. Studies show that circumcision correlates with far lower post-natal health
complications as well as reduced infection rates. If done early - there's really no scientific basis for claims of lost sensitivity (though if done
later in life, the body responds to the change differently and leads to thicker tissues and weaker neural pathways).
Especially if your only reasoning for doing so is to appease the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The reasoning behind it is rather irrelevant.
Laws exist for the function and betterment of society. We can agree on that point, yes?
How does banning circumcision result in a better society?
Now, let's be pragmatic: Do laws make people behave a certain way; or do they only provide legal/fiscal consequences for people who choose certain
In that case, how does banning a person from performing a medical procedure in a licensed, legitimate medical facility lead to 2 things: reduction of
targeted behavior and improvements to society?
Because here is what will happen: People will choose to have their children circumcised regardless of laws. The reasoning for it is irrelevant to
the fact that they will. If they cannot do it in your legitimate medical facilities (that also pay taxes, by the way)... they will go to less
credible sources that are, by their very nature, are clandestine and unknowable.
How does that eventuality compare to the argument against circumcision?
By the way - the flying spaghetti monster is a straw man argument of semantics. It's no different than if I were to say that you just stuck a cock
in your mouth when you take a bite of chicken (actually - it was probably a hen... but you get the idea).
Regardless of what you call it - it is what it is. The idea that some entity created the universe is not affected by what you choose to personify
that entity (be it an old wizard of a man, a flying spaghetti monster, or 'theory of everything' you feel indicates design).
That said - I really don't think said entity gives a rat's ass about many of our daily decisions. I think the Muslims are absolutely out of their
minds to participate in fasts during the summer time around here. The concept of using adverse experiences to strengthen and/or challenge one's
personal development is a good one... but the idea that God actually cares about whether or not you ate during the day is quite arbitrary. I think
Baptists are crazy for thinking that blessing some water and dipping a barely self-aware baby into it will somehow establish some kind of contract
between God and the kid (if anything - it affirms the community's responsibility in helping to raise the child; it's more of a social ritual than a
mystic one - but everyone likes to believe in magic).
But - at the end of the day - it's all irrelevant. We can define laws and their function. We can also predict social response to those laws and use
those predictions to assess the impact the law will have on social behavior. Once done - we can determine whether or not the law will result in a net
At the end of the day - this law falls under the "no net benefit" category, with a tendency toward "possible detriment." Any law that cannot
provide substantial benefit to society should not be considered for ratification.