Why is the ethics of cutting in the genitals of children so different dependning on the sex of the child?
-
- Posts: 141
- Joined: October 21st, 2020, 4:20 pm
Why is the ethics of cutting in the genitals of children so different dependning on the sex of the child?
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Why is the ethics of cutting in the genitals of children so different dependning on the sex of the child?
FIrst, it is not universally accepted to cut on the genitals of boys. Some people are against it, which you can find with a search online.
Second, the reason for the difference in attitude in some people is because of the superstitious twaddle they believe. Typically, it is religious nonsense. If some fool thing is promoted by a religion, then the religious zealots of that type will be in favor of that fool thing. It can be anything from something trivial to something grotesque.
Third, there are some morons who regard it as acceptable to cut up both. This isn't any more unreasonable than the second group, though, in practice, it is more obnoxious because it involves the option of cutting up twice as many children.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7984
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Why is the ethics of cutting in the genitals of children so different dependning on the sex of the child?
You are displaying a western, Christian viewpoint, thus comments such as "universally accepted" and "widely condemned" are inaccurate.SimonP wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 6:18 pm Cutting the genitals of boys is universally accepted whereas cutting the genitals of girls is widely condemned and severly punished. This is reflected in many ways eg there are many explicit videos on YouTube of boys having their genitals cut in a wide variety of settings whereas similar videos showing girls having their genitals cut are taken down. Another example: two cases from Ireland, in the first an infant boy haemorrhages resulting in death and in the second an infant girl haemorrhages and survives, with very different judgements.
I can tell you that within the western, Christian culture, male circumcision is dropping in popularity more due to the issue of patient autonomy than disagreement with the practice itself.
-
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm
Re: Why is the ethics of cutting in the genitals of children so different dependning on the sex of the child?
-
- Posts: 141
- Joined: October 21st, 2020, 4:20 pm
Re: Why is the ethics of cutting in the genitals of children so different dependning on the sex of the child?
When I state that it is universally accepted I don't mean every individual in the world finds it acceptable. Rather I base this on the fact that every individual belongs to a state or community, in which it is accepted practice in the sense that nobody is punished just for performing it.Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 10:34 pm Three things.
FIrst, it is not universally accepted to cut on the genitals of boys. Some people are against it, which you can find with a search online.
You write some people however I don't see any evidence of a general pattern even among these "some" that differentiates them from others in this respect. If you were to make some street interview in New York where one participant was an orthodox practicing Jew who had his son cut because of his "superstitious twaddle" then I think he would have a very different attitude towards cutting girls, basically condemning it, just as a declared atheist. I will grant you that there is some solidarity between non practicing religious authorities and support for those that do however this is limited to the cutting of boys and therefore actually reinforces this difference of attitude. Nowhere to my knowledge, have we seen serious ie senior religious leaders', opposing legislation banning the cutting of girls from their non practicing religious communities, in solidarity with practicing communities. There has been very limited support from some minor leaders but this was in order to protect their own practice and not out of a significantly different attitude.Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 10:34 pm Second, the reason for the difference in attitude in some people is because of the superstitious twaddle they believe. Typically, it is religious nonsense. If some fool thing is promoted by a religion, then the religious zealots of that type will be in favor of that fool thing. It can be anything from something trivial to something grotesque.
Which would imply that we are all "morons" given my reasoning for what a society regards as acceptable? There's another problem here with thinking of individuals and that is given a practice is not only accepted but widely practiced as a norm, this alone becomes a factor to consider ie conforming to a norm, even a "superstitious twaddle" one which one doesn't find acceptable, can be of real benefit as ensuring acceptance within the community. It becomes even more complicated as even in those countries which have banned the ritual cutting of girls it is still acceptable under certain conditions ie that the girl has given informed consent and clearly desires having her genitals "trimmed". Indeed in some cases it will even be regarded as medically necessary for her mental health and done on the national health service. Here the reason is along the same lines of conformity except where the person in question regards her natural genitals as not being normal compared to the natural genitals of peers. This option is not open for all girls though but divided along racial lines so that parents of non white girls will find themselves legally liable on return from a trip abroad after a labiaplasty performed on their daughter, whereas parents of white girls won't.Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 10:34 pm Third, there are some morons who regard it as acceptable to cut up both. This isn't any more unreasonable than the second group, though, in practice, it is more obnoxious because it involves the option of cutting up twice as many children.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Why is the ethics of cutting in the genitals of children so different dependning on the sex of the child?
IN the UK it is rare.
I wonder if this practive is due to a post hoc justification by Jewish doctors who have inveted "good" reasons for chopping up babies, in a climate of over-treatment of a pay based health system.
I know that when I was born (1960) in Spokane, by Dad was offered a special deal on sewing-up belly button and cutting off the foreskin for a discount (I kid you not).
Being young and stupid, and not have a foreskin himself he elected for the discount.
There is NO good medical reason for mutilating a baby in this way.
In the Uk where it is rare there is no incidence of foreskin problems. By contrast there are can be severe problems as a consequnce of the mutilation. Not just immediate problems of infection, but cases where the skin has healed twisting the penis. And as adults a lack of sensitivity an loss of feeling during sexual intercourse.
The Jewish orthodox ritual practice can be very damaging. Traditionally the Bris is performed orally. A NY rabbi has caused the deaths of some children through herpes infection. But despite that has continued to practice and infect others.
God is Not Great, by Christopher Hitchens
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 20446.html
This practice continues.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/4-ny-babi ... -6-months/
-
- Posts: 141
- Joined: October 21st, 2020, 4:20 pm
Re: Why is the ethics of cutting in the genitals of children so different dependning on the sex of the child?
I don't think that's fair as I am using the practical administration of the law as a metric, why would this be biased in favour of a Christian viewpoint?LuckyR wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 3:22 amYou are displaying a western, Christian viewpoint, thus comments such as "universally accepted" and "widely condemned" are inaccurate.SimonP wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 6:18 pm Cutting the genitals of boys is universally accepted whereas cutting the genitals of girls is widely condemned and severly punished. This is reflected in many ways eg there are many explicit videos on YouTube of boys having their genitals cut in a wide variety of settings whereas similar videos showing girls having their genitals cut are taken down. Another example: two cases from Ireland, in the first an infant boy haemorrhages resulting in death and in the second an infant girl haemorrhages and survives, with very different judgements.
I can tell you that within the western, Christian culture, male circumcision is dropping in popularity more due to the issue of patient autonomy than disagreement with the practice itself.
I think it would be more correct to say within the "native" anglophile culture and while this may be so, just like Christianity it's becoming more popular in other regions. I would also question the term "patient autonomy" here as it is not a medical procedure on a patient but (for many) a medical ritual on a healthy hapless person.
-
- Posts: 141
- Joined: October 21st, 2020, 4:20 pm
Re: Why is the ethics of cutting in the genitals of children so different dependning on the sex of the child?
I think the difference between structural accepted abuse through the law and it's administration, and what people are actually capable of irrespective of it.
-
- Posts: 141
- Joined: October 21st, 2020, 4:20 pm
Re: Why is the ethics of cutting in the genitals of children so different dependning on the sex of the child?
I would disagree, I think you'll find it far more common just in Pakistan let alone the rest of south and southeast Asia. I think you'll find that with immigration it is becoming mor ecommon in UK as it is in the rest of Europe.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 7:23 am The epidemic of male circumscion in non semitic peoples is most common the USA.
IN the UK it is rare.
I wonder if this practive is due to a post hoc justification by Jewish doctors who have inveted "good" reasons for chopping up babies, in a climate of over-treatment of a pay based health system.
I know that when I was born (1960) in Spokane, by Dad was offered a special deal on sewing-up belly button and cutting off the foreskin for a discount (I kid you not).
Being young and stupid, and not have a foreskin himself he elected for the discount.
There is NO good medical reason for mutilating a baby in this way.
In the Uk where it is rare there is no incidence of foreskin problems. By contrast there are can be severe problems as a consequnce of the mutilation. Not just immediate problems of infection, but cases where the skin has healed twisting the penis. And as adults a lack of sensitivity an loss of feeling during sexual intercourse.
The Jewish orthodox ritual practice can be very damaging. Traditionally the Bris is performed orally. A NY rabbi has caused the deaths of some children through herpes infection. But despite that has continued to practice and infect others.
God is Not Great, by Christopher Hitchens
[removed link]
This practice continues.
[removed link]
No doubt Jewish doctors have played a role however not a decisive one, there being plenty of examples of other "treatments" that have nothing to do with Judaism.
Seriously, you have no belly button? Your foreskin wasn't used to fill it in was it?
In the UK a good reason for mutilating a baby in this way is for it to feel a sense of belonging both within the family and the community, which is why it is offered on the UK national health service, at least in Scotland. I do agree with you though, it is a gross violation of the rights of the child, a harmful cultural practice that should be eradicated.
There is plenty of evidence of foreskin problems in the UK with many saying they were circumcised for medical reasons. The epidemological evidence, extreme uneven distribution, though suggests that most are not genuine or at least not so serious that they required surgery. This is due to the widespread belief that the foreskin collects dirt and is a bed of pathogens needing special cleaning attention. The special attention leading to damage which in turn leads to foreskin problems.
It's not necessary to cross the pond or focus on Jewish practice, to see deaths caused by ritual amputation of the male foreskin and lack og legislation or even regulation afterwards.
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Why is the ethics of cutting in the genitals of children so different dependning on the sex of the child?
So you are an American. Somehow I had the impression you were British. I apologize for the mistake.
(For any Brits reading this, the apology is for making a mistake; it is not a slight against being British.)
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Why is the ethics of cutting in the genitals of children so different dependning on the sex of the child?
I've lived in the UK for a very long time.Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 11:13 amSo you are an American. Somehow I had the impression you were British. I apologize for the mistake.
(For any Brits reading this, the apology is for making a mistake; it is not a slight against being British.)
I do not consider myself to be American or British for that matter. The whole idea is vanity. A dangerous vanity that humans could do without.
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Why is the ethics of cutting in the genitals of children so different dependning on the sex of the child?
I view it more as an accident of birth, something to be neither proud of nor ashamed of. I am reminded of the words of Marcus Aurelius (though my memory of his words must have been a different translation):Sculptor1 wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 11:48 amI've lived in the UK for a very long time.Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 11:13 am
So you are an American. Somehow I had the impression you were British. I apologize for the mistake.
(For any Brits reading this, the apology is for making a mistake; it is not a slight against being British.)
I do not consider myself to be American or British for that matter. The whole idea is vanity. A dangerous vanity that humans could do without.
"But my nature is rational and social; and my city and country, so far as I am Antoninus, is Rome, but so far as I am a man, it is the world."
http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.mb.txt
My memory is more like this:
Insofar as I am emperor, I am a citizen of Rome, but insofar as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world.
Of course, memory is unreliable, but, perhaps, there is a translation that renders it more like the way I remember it.
Regardless, I agree with the sentiment expressed there, or, at least, with my interpretation of that sentiment.
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Why is the ethics of cutting in the genitals of children so different dependning on the sex of the child?
I'm not certain, but I believe that circumcision helps with hygiene. But the operation on girls is to prevent them from enjoying sex. In one case there is a benefit from a temporary harm. In the other case there is a long lasting harm. That's the difference.SimonP wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 6:18 pm Cutting the genitals of boys is universally accepted whereas cutting the genitals of girls is widely condemned and severly punished. This is reflected in many ways eg there are many explicit videos on YouTube of boys having their genitals cut in a wide variety of settings whereas similar videos showing girls having their genitals cut are taken down. Another example: two cases from Ireland, in the first an infant boy haemorrhages resulting in death and in the second an infant girl haemorrhages and survives, with very different judgements.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Why is the ethics of cutting in the genitals of children so different dependning on the sex of the child?
What you beleive is only a reflection of the garbage you have been fed. One of the myths of the age.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 4:42 pmI'm not certain, but I believe that circumcision helps with hygiene.SimonP wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 6:18 pm Cutting the genitals of boys is universally accepted whereas cutting the genitals of girls is widely condemned and severly punished. This is reflected in many ways eg there are many explicit videos on YouTube of boys having their genitals cut in a wide variety of settings whereas similar videos showing girls having their genitals cut are taken down. Another example: two cases from Ireland, in the first an infant boy haemorrhages resulting in death and in the second an infant girl haemorrhages and survives, with very different judgements.
I used to think the same way until I looked into it.
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Why is the ethics of cutting in the genitals of children so different dependning on the sex of the child?
SimonP wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 7:22 amWhen I state that it is universally accepted I don't mean every individual in the world finds it acceptable. Rather I base this on the fact that every individual belongs to a state or community, in which it is accepted practice in the sense that nobody is punished just for performing it.Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 10:34 pm Three things.
FIrst, it is not universally accepted to cut on the genitals of boys. Some people are against it, which you can find with a search online.
Given that this is the ethics forum and not a forum on law, that is something that you should have specified. There are people who are trying to have it made illegal, though it runs into issues of other people who want it for religious reasons, with Jewish and Muslim outrage against banning the practice, as well as people who are accustomed to it and therefore want to continue it. Iceland, it seems, is considering outlawing the practice.
SimonP wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 7:22 amYou write some people however I don't see any evidence of a general pattern even among these "some" that differentiates them from others in this respect. If you were to make some street interview in New York where one participant was an orthodox practicing Jew who had his son cut because of his "superstitious twaddle" then I think he would have a very different attitude towards cutting girls, basically condemning it, just as a declared atheist. I will grant you that there is some solidarity between non practicing religious authorities and support for those that do however this is limited to the cutting of boys and therefore actually reinforces this difference of attitude. Nowhere to my knowledge, have we seen serious ie senior religious leaders', opposing legislation banning the cutting of girls from their non practicing religious communities, in solidarity with practicing communities. There has been very limited support from some minor leaders but this was in order to protect their own practice and not out of a significantly different attitude.Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 10:34 pm Second, the reason for the difference in attitude in some people is because of the superstitious twaddle they believe. Typically, it is religious nonsense. If some fool thing is promoted by a religion, then the religious zealots of that type will be in favor of that fool thing. It can be anything from something trivial to something grotesque.
I am unsure of your meaning. Perhaps you misunderstood me, as I was referring to why it is that some people believe it is okay to cut up boys but not girls.
The reason why Jews and Muslims generally favor male circumcision is due to their religion. These religions have influenced other religions and cultural practices. Additionally, there has been in the history of medicine a lot of quackery about the supposed benefits of it, and was apparently regarded as a way to discourage "self abuse" (masturbation) and, well, let me just insert a quote (I caution anyone before clicking on the link below it, as it contains some graphics that you may find unpleasant):
(Again, I caution everyone thinking about clicking on the link, as you may find some of the graphics there unpleasant.)BJU International (1999), 83, Suppl. 1, 1–12 wrote:By the middle of the 19th century, anaesthesia and antisepsis were rapidly changing surgical practice. The first reported circumcision in the surgical accounts of St Bartholomew’s Hospital was in 1865; although this comprised only one of the 417 operations performed that year, it was clearly becoming a more common procedure [16]. Indeed, this was a time when surgical cures were being explored for all ails and in 1878 Curling described circumcision as a cure for impotence in men who also had an associated phimosis [17]. Many other surgeons reported circumcision as being beneficial for a diverse range of sexual problems [18]. Walsham (1903) re-iterates the putative association of phimosis with impotence and suggests that it may also predispose to sterility, priapism, excess masturbation and even venereal disease [19]. Warren (1915) adds epilepsy, nocturnal enuresis, night terrors and ‘precocious sexual unrest’ to the list of dangers [20], and this accepted catalogue of ‘phimotic ills’ is extended in American textbooks to include other aspects of ‘sexual erethisms’ such as homosexuality [21,22].
https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wil ... 830s1001.x
So we have both religion and medical quackery in the history of this. Within the medical quackery, there is also some Victorian sexual repression as well, which, of course, pertains to religion, even though the specific religion of Christianity did not directly require the practice.
Of course, once one has been doing something for a long time, one tends to try very hard to justify it with any seemingly plausible excuse one can dream up, rather than admit what one has been doing is ill-considered.
SimonP wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 7:22 amWhich would imply that we are all "morons" given my reasoning for what a society regards as acceptable?Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 10:34 pm Third, there are some morons who regard it as acceptable to cut up both. This isn't any more unreasonable than the second group, though, in practice, it is more obnoxious because it involves the option of cutting up twice as many children.
I don't understand your thoughts on this. To be blunt, since my meaning seems to have been unclear, I regard the cutting on children for no good reason as barbaric, regardless of whether it is male children or female children we are discussing. So I would be in favor of making it illegal to cut the genitalia of children without a real medical reason (as opposed to some half-baked idea like it promotes cleanliness or some other bit of nonsense).
SimonP wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 7:22 am There's another problem here with thinking of individuals and that is given a practice is not only accepted but widely practiced as a norm, this alone becomes a factor to consider ie conforming to a norm, even a "superstitious twaddle" one which one doesn't find acceptable, can be of real benefit as ensuring acceptance within the community. It becomes even more complicated as even in those countries which have banned the ritual cutting of girls it is still acceptable under certain conditions ie that the girl has given informed consent and clearly desires having her genitals "trimmed". Indeed in some cases it will even be regarded as medically necessary for her mental health and done on the national health service. Here the reason is along the same lines of conformity except where the person in question regards her natural genitals as not being normal compared to the natural genitals of peers. This option is not open for all girls though but divided along racial lines so that parents of non white girls will find themselves legally liable on return from a trip abroad after a labiaplasty performed on their daughter, whereas parents of white girls won't.
I do not regard conformity as a legitimate reason to cut someone. If parents mistreat their children such that the children suffer mentally from their parents not accepting them uncut, then the problem is with the parents who are abusing their children. Cutting the children for that reason is unjust; the parents should be punished for their abuse, and, perhaps, have their children taken from them.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023