So I just got kicked from Ade's post about belief and tradition, because I happened to raise the dreaded C-word (circumcision), a topic that is dear to my heart and I love ranting about, not least because it continually strikes me as one of the oddest paradoxes about modern society: we run ads about how awful it is to hit children, but we're more than happy to chop bits off of them when they're a few days old. Adrian asked me not to talk about it on his blog -which is fair enough, it's his place, but I thought I'd resurrect the discussion here.
It's funny that I was asked not to talk about it because a refusal to discuss things it usually a big indicator that the refuser knows they have no genuine defence for the argument in question. Another big indicator is the culture defence, which was also used:
I will not have this post subverted with weighted language that insults my entire culture and history regardless of ones opinion on God.
ie. "It's part of my culture and therefore not subject to discussion or critique." It's a pretty common argument, Wikipedia really needs an entry on it. Although I use the word 'argument' very generously, because it's not an argument at all, it's a false logic that should be denigrated and exposed as the sham it is. Which is not to say I don't enjoy and appreciate culture, I just think that if the only leg you have to stand on is that something is tradition, then it's not a very good basis for the defence of child abuse.
Yep, circumcision is child abuse- you're chopping up a baby for no rhyme or reason other than that your traditions demand it. And that is not reason enough. The biggest additional reason given is that it's somehow medically beneficial. This may have been true back in the day when folks lived in the desert and it was tough to find time to scrub. This is true no longer- the odds of contracting some kind of 'foreskin-related' disease is far, far lower than the number of botched circumcisions that occur every year.
The other big argument for it is that chicks dig cut dicks. This may be true, but listen to what you're saying: It's okay to perform gential mutilation on your eight-day-old child, in order that their penis looks better in 16+ years. Why not just wait and let them make the decision when they reach that age? At least then the choice is theirs. "Oh, it's not as traumatic as later on" What the fuck do you know? You ever had a baby say: "Yeah, it's not that bad." Ever chopped the end of your big toe off with a shovel? You know how you feel all woozy when you look at it? You know how your body will sometimes go into shock to try and cope with it? Now try that when you're eight days old, tell me that's a great idea. You don't punch babies in the head, why the hell do we allow people to chop them up?
So all you're left with is the culture defence. I think Saddam's been using this in his trial:
"But your honour, it's old tradition in my country to incinerate Kurds in this way!"
"By Allah you're right man, not guilty on all counts."
It's not a defence. My culture has a long and glorious tradition of racism and sexism, but I'll stand up against those too, I don't care who I offend or piss off. There is no defence to this act. Not anymore, not since the freakin' Enlightenment. Past parents who have cut their kids, you got a free pass. Future parents? You do not. You are on notice. You chop up your baby when it can't defend itself: you're a child abuser. Society might not say you are. The law may not punish you for it. Friends may be too polite to bring it up with you.
But deep down, below your fragile excuse for a fragile excuse, you'll know.
This is a 
I think you make an excellent argument, but it is institutionalised in religion and culture, so regardless of how wrong it is, it is a wrong that is not viewed as such by a large number of people.
I was surprised that in the US, it's the norm. It is actually UNUSUAL to ask hospital staff NOT to circumcise your child.
Unfair
And again. Unfair
I never asked you not to talk about it because I didn't want to talk about it. I'm happy to talk about it. But you have a habit (as do I) of having a discussion about something unrelated to the post. I have just written a very important and meaningful post, about not believing in God and why, and how I find it a difficult emotion to deal with being Jewish. This is not a post I was subverted to a discussion about circumcision. I'm happy to discuss and debate it, and I still have a pending post on this since the last argument. So don't accuse me of not wanting to discuss it because I don't have an opinion or valid thoughts on this matter.
Secondly I refuse to have a debate with people who aren't willing to debate. I refuse to debate with people about homosexuality when they see gays as evil, because their is no debate there. They have made up their mind. The same as pro-lifers calling people who had an abortion murders. There is no debate their either. You language gives you away, and watching how people I know who have had an abortion react to being called a murder says exactly why I don't debate in these instance.
You're more than titled to your opinion. But language has power and words have weight. Call my father a child molester, and it's clear you have made your decision. You want no debate. You want people to know that you are right and that the other side is wrong and that nothing in the argument is up for debate, that their are no grey areas. That it simply is that circumcision is child molestation and no more.
I refuse to debate at this point. Discuss with me why you think circumcision is wrong, and I'm happy to discuss. Tell me my father is and I am likely to be a child molester (comparing us to despicable people) and there is simply no debate and their never will be.
I'm not friendly with child molesters or rapists or murders. If you truly felt like this, I don't know how you could be friendly with me some one who in your opinion will molest children when he is older. Someone who loves his father and thinks he has a get dad, whom you think I was molested by.
You mistake personal opinion for being unequivocally correct and flawless and accuse me of not wanting to debate because I know I'm wrong.
I don't want to debate because in a few short lines you told me this isn't something you want to debate. This isn't not being debated because of my opinion, but because of yours.
Ay, didn't mean to open up such a can of worms.
Adrian, I didn't think it was off-topic, I thought that your post was about how you will come to terms with observing Judaism whilst no longer believing in God. Seeing as the customs were passed onto you by your family, I wondered if you would then follow tradition if you had children, even though you no longer believe in the reasoning behind it.
Dan, you are being pretty inflamatory -shades of grey and all that - (and as Stuart writes about America, in British hospitals until the 70s it was the practice to automatically circumcise baby boys because they believed in the medical benefits.)
Though actually I agree with you, I don't think citing culture and tradition holds up as an argument - but I found out through personal experience, feelings run ve-ry deep on this subject and probably best to tread carefully...
I was surprised that in the US, it's the norm.
True- I think it was the law in a lot of states up until around '77 or thereabouts, hence a lot of arguments about circumcision during my childhood years. It's dying out pretty rapidly though, about which I'm pleased.
I'm happy to talk about it.
Yeah but are you going to? Apparently not.
I still have a pending post on this since the last argument
That was two years ago.
You want no debate. You want people to know that you are right and that the other side is wrong
Trust me on this, no-one wants a logical, reasoned opposing argument in this debate more than I. I'd feel so much better about the world if someone could show me how this isn't wrong. The argument hasn't come. You're certainly not providing it with your three-times dodge. I'm extremely open-minded and take great joy in absorbing information objectively. Lay your cards on the table, I'm all ears. Just because I've yet to hear an argument does not mean I'm unwilling to hear one. Why would I assume my position to be incorrect if there was zero conflicting evidence?
Call my father a child molester
I knew this would come up and that's retarded, especially that you would use a word that has a completely different meaning. At no point did I say there were not degrees of child abuse. Of course circumcising a baby is not the same as a systematic sexual abuse, do I even need to spell that out? But is it worse than giving a child a clip on the ear? I think it is, actually (I mean, it's not as though that permanently takes the top of your ear off, it is?)- yet many people make the case that striking children is child abuse, even though it was a staple of our parents' generation. I think you're being hysterical because you've been personally offended, but this isn't about you, it's about people who explain behaivour with culture and nothing else and expact that to be sufficient.
If you truly felt like this, I don't know how you could be friendly with me some one who in your opinion will molest children when he is older.
I think you'll be a great dad. I've met your dad and he seems a great guy. But if you're going to put this ancient and wacky tradition over the human rights of your potential son, then yeah, I'd love to have that explained to me. It'd make me feel better about it. Can it be explained?
I don't want to debate because in a few short lines you told me this isn't something you want to debate.
Maybe I just want to understand. Can you help me to understand? Because I really don't, and dodging the question just makes me think there's no understanding.
Ay, didn't mean to open up such a can of worms.
Don't worry Annie, this can of worms has been open for yonks! Plus I agree with you, I think your comment was apposite. So...what happened with your nephew?
Dan, you are being pretty inflamatory
Well, yes, and I'm not completely insensible to that, I've had many a debate with men who feel very strongly that they want to cut up their kids. Not even religious people often, just guys who feel that they want their son to be the same as they are. But out of dozens of arguments I've never heard one that holds water- in fact a lot of the rationale, like the penis-modelling-for-future-partners one, is kind of disturbing.
and as Stuart writes about America, in British hospitals until the 70s it was the practice to automatically circumcise baby boys because they believed in the medical benefits
Well one of the listed medical benefits was that it would curb masturbation...which is bad for you.
feelings run ve-ry deep on this subject and probably best to tread carefully
Is it really? I mean, fair enough that you would tread carefully around your family and fair enough that Adrian stopped me from overtaking his thread, particularly with his dad reading. But outside of that context I think treading carefully is exacerbating the problem. I think we're (rightfully) very wary of assuming our culture takes precedence over another, so we're afraid to point out certain wrongs because we don't want to offend anyone, probably because when people get offended, they get really defensive and overreactive (ref: any number of front page news stories in the last five years). I'm not actually coming at this from a cultural corner. My culture supports or at the very least ignores circumcision. I'm coming at this from a common sense view: If chopping off your baby's toenails is a crime, if chopping off your baby's eyelids is a crime, if hitting a baby is a crime, why is chopping off the end of your baby's penis not a crmie? That's all I want to know. I genuinely don't know the answer to this question, and I genuinely, despite Adrian's assumptions, would like to know. The only thing I can come up with is:
Sometimes people do stupid things.
Sometimes religion and tradition make people do stupid things.
That's all I've got. If there's a better reason, I want someone to tell me.
Seriously? You say this is an act of child molesting, and then say that "you didn't quite mean that my dad was as bad as a worse child molester". Don't accuse me of being retarded when you pick language that can only inflame. You don't punch someone in the face and say "we'll I didn't stab you don't be silly".
Saying "I think circumcision is unhealthy for children, and leads to problems, as well as being socially irresnopsible" is markedly different from saying "circumcision is child molesting" knowing full well I am circumcised.
Don't think for a moment I'm not deeply offended by what you accuse my dad of. Accuse me of what you will, but next time you use weighted words in a debate, remember that words have meaning, regarless of how many degrees of child molesting you see.
Don't think I'll debate the acctual issue of circumcision whilst you call my dad a molester. I wont. Don;t accuse me of dodging the issue whilst calling me and my father foul names as an opening to what you say is debate.
On the issue of debate as opposed to circumcision.
Can you really understand somethign you disagree with so violently?
Can you really see the greys on an issue you see so black and white?
Can you really debate something where your opionion sees only right and wrong and others see greys?
I understand anti-vivecectionist point. I disagree but resons I can explain but I understand. They don't understand my point at all, because they cannot see animal testing as anything more than abuse. Your arguments on animal testing on my blog have said as much.
You don't see this as your opinion vs my opionion but as me convicning you of somethign that you see as simple and I see as complex.
I'm not dodging the debate, I just don't see any discussion here. Like the homeopathy debate we're looking at the same things and interpreating it differently.
Not withstanding their are 3 debates.
- One about the value of traditions
- One about the value of circumcisiton
- One about the valye of circumcision as a treadition.
Until you have the first two debates in isolation, I'm not sure the third deabte can be had. And if you don't agree with the first two in isolation the third deabte is pointless.
You want me to prove something is not wrong. However I don't see the something as right or wrong, anymore then I see .. say ... having a dog instead of a cat as right or wrong.
So how can we debate when we are viewing the same issue as a very diffirent occurance.
I'm not sure you want a debate, I'm really not. The only outcome you can perceive is me admitting I am wrong. Were I see two opionions that can coexist.
when people get offended, they get really defensive and overreactive...
No, really? So if you really genuinely want to understand something, or to change people's minds on an issue you feel strongly about, if you really want a debate, is it wise to piss them off first by using words like child abuse? (This is what I mean about treading carefully - not going along with something you disagree with, but maybe choosing your words.)
To clarify - I totally agree with you on circumcision (though I grew up without thinking about it & only started to question it when I was working for a charity and hearing about FGM, and began to wonder if male circumcision was any more defensible. It goes on world-wide and it's going to take a long long time to change.) But I do think Adrian has a point.
I feel a little guilty because my sister has expressly asked me not to blog about her - never mind, she won't be reading here - my sister refused to have my nephew circumcised - my father was furious - they didn't speak for a long time - relationship's still frosty 9 years later. (And he did have to be circumcised for medical reasons a year ago, poor little sod. Can you say irony?)
Okay first up, I'd like to apologize to Adrian and all my circumcized friends for causing offence. I'm not trying to talk about you or your parents. I'm trying to talk about a paradox that I see in modern society that you happen to be a part of. It's not about you. I think you're all great. That's why you're my friends.
You say this is an act of child molesting
I never, ever said that. I specifically clarified that I didn't say that. Let us clarify some terms:
Abuse - to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.
Molest - to assault sexually.
I never used the word molest- you did, and I think I made it very clear that there are degrees of abuse, and molest is clearly referring to something in a different league, which is why I used a more general word.
Don't think for a moment I'm not deeply offended by what you accuse my dad of.
I apologize for offending you. What do you want me to do? Your offense overriding the argument is precisely what I'm getting at. I'm not sorry Muslims are offended I hate burqas. I'm not sorry Christians are offended that I support women's rights. But I have to be sorry I disapprove of circumcision because it offends a friend of mine? Why do you get special circumstances? Either I believe something is wrong or I don't. No-one is giving me the "it's right" argument, so I have no alternative.
Can you really understand somethign you disagree with so violently?
I don't disagree 'violently'. Do you see me sending death-threats to doctors who circumcize babies? I just don't understand. You getting mad doesn't help me to understand, it makes me understand less. It makes me think: "There's nothing behind this but blind belief."
Can you really see the greys on an issue you see so black and white?
If someone attempted to explain them to me, maybe. No-one has.
Can you really debate something where your opionion sees only right and wrong and others see greys?
Why don't you quit making my decision for me and just assuming that I won't (when everything you know about me should indicate that I will) and just find out one way or the other?
They don't understand my point at all, because they cannot see animal testing as anything more than abuse. Your arguments on animal testing on my blog have said as much.
Are you kidding me? My anti-vivisectionist points on your blog were arguments. Points of view. They're not how I actually feel about vivisection. This is a key point of difference between us when we argue- I don't need to believe or agree with a perspective to understand it. I understand where anti-vivisectionists are coming from, what drives them. I don't agree with it. But I don't understand why a parent would cut on their child. I don't. I'm asking for explanation and all you're giving me is anger. And you think I'm angry about it- I'm really not. I'm confused.
You don't see this as your opinion vs my opionion but as me convicning you of somethign that you see as simple and I see as complex.
It's true that I don't see the complexities. To me it seems almost axiomatic that you shouldn't cut on babies. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to hear the shades of grey. It does, however, seem to mean that you're unwilling to say them, and that makes me think there aren't any. Are there?
Like the homeopathy debate we're looking at the same things and interpreating it differently.
Like the homeopathy debate there are some things that override opinion- they're called facts. This is a problem I see with the media at the moment, it's as if opinion has over-ridden fact. Sometimes if something is white it really is just white. Yes, I'm seeing white at the moment. If it's grey, tell me how it's grey. I promise not to use the A word anymore if you promise to actually answer a sraight question. How many different ways can I beg you to do this? If you lay out your argument, I won't even respond, I'll just take it in, how about that?
Until you have the first two debates in isolation, I'm not sure the third deabte can be had. And if you don't agree with the first two in isolation the third deabte is pointless.
Okay, well, let's have the first two, then. I submit to you that traditions should not override human rights, and that the potential health values driving circumcision are lower than the potential risks. How do you respond, sir?
So how can we debate when we are viewing the same issue as a very diffirent occurance.
So you're saying that once someone has an opinion on something, discussing it with them becomes moot. That's really wierd.
The only outcome you can perceive is me admitting I am wrong.
Look, I know you'll never admit you're "wrong". But right now I don't even know what it is you believe. You've said you don't believe in God and that is affecting your traditions. Is it going to affect your traditions as much as it affected Annie's family? I'm curious. Do you question it? When you have the debate in your head (if there is going to be one), what arguments will you use to support the 'pro' side. I am not trying to be incendiary. I am not trying to offend you. I am trying to get answers. Are there any? Are there any answers? If there are, don't get mad, tell me the answer. You know I respect your traditions and like learning about them- you know I ask about them all the time and feel honoured when you include me in them. I promise to absorb it as best I can. You don't have to change my mind. I don't have to change yours. But I've had the guts to tell you what I think when I knew it might offend you- now do the same.
So if you really genuinely want to understand something, or to change people's minds on an issue you feel strongly about, if you really want a debate, is it wise to piss them off first by using words like child abuse?
I don't really want to change anyone's mind. I don't think I ever have, on any issue. Yes making Adrian angry did not seem to lubricate the information I wanted, but my intent was not to make him angry. My intent was to be honest about how I saw things. If that pisses people off, well, Billy Joel knows all about that.
started to question it when I was working for a charity and hearing about FGM, and began to wonder if male circumcision was any more defensible.
Well female circumcision is I would say an order of magnitude worse than male circumcision- a gender analogy would be chopping the entire head of the penis off, which I definitely agree is much, much worse than circumcision (although does sometimes (0.6% of the time) happen during a circumcision- as does complete loss of the penis). Circumcision is more like lopping off the clitoral hood. And if that makes you blanch- good! I won't say the A-word, but I think if people were doing that to baby girls, people would start going to jail.
my sister refused to have my nephew circumcised
Your sister rules. If anyone came at my baby with intent to chop, I'd totally punch them out- even my mom. So when the whole argument with your family was going on (if you don't mind me asking), what were the arguments in favour? I'm genuinely curious to know and am glad I have not enraged you as well.
And he did have to be circumcised for medical reasons a year ago, poor little sod. Can you say irony?
Eek! Your dad must have felt totally smug! That's actually pretty funny. Not for your nephew obviously, but, y'know, as ironies go. Sorry.
Dan: Start a lobby group. We live in a democracy. If the majority think you're right you can change the law.
Personally (as a non Jewish circumcised male) I'm going to fight to retain my choice to have my son circumcised. I'm thankful that my parents had me circumcised. I've never once wished that I wasn't.
Don't ask me why I want this choice. There are a myriad of reasons, not least of which tradition and my irrational feelings on the subject.
And be warned of scoffing at tradition. Tradition is very often the glue of culture.
I'd just like to apologize again to the friends I have offended with this post. I withdraw the word abuse. I was using it in its literal meaning, but have come to understand that it now has a distinct popular meaning which conjures images of pedophiles and cigarette burns. In no way did I mean to imply I felt circumcision was on that scale of evil, and I withdraw the word. I haven't changed my opinion, I still disapprove.
Start a lobby group.
I may have also mistakenly given the impression that I care about circumcision beyond having a strong opinion about it. I really don't. In fact I can barely think of a topic which has less impact on me personally. As an issue it will never, ever affect me. I was using it to illustrate a point that people think culture is sacrosanct and can be used to justify practically anything, no matter how barbarous.
Don't ask me why I want this choice.
Thus I feel my point is proven.
I've never once wished that I wasn't.
I should also clarfiy that I'm not against circumcision per se, but against unnecessary non-consensual radical surgery in general. I think it's very fortunate you are happy to be circumcized, and people are free to do whatever they want with their bodies in my book. It'd be slightly less fortunate if you didn't feel that way. Rather than fighting for your right to have dominion over your son's body, why not fight for his right to choose?
Tradition is very often the glue of culture.
I would say that tradition to a very large degree is culture. Not sure why that should make me wary of scoffing at it, though. Stupid things should be exposed for the stupid things they are. If one uses culture or tradition as a sheild for foolish action, then they fully deserve my scoffage.
ps- for the record I think you, like Adrian, would make a great dad.
Dude, no worries. I didn't take any offense. I just thought I'd chuck my coupla cents in.
It's much appreciated.
I've got to say, I'm leaning towards Dan's point of view here. How has the subject of female circumcision not come up in this disucssion yet? Traditional, barbaric, it fits the bill.
While there are not the same negative results in male circumcision, it's a very good example of what Dan is trying to illustrate, I think.
And Ade, mate, I can understand your offence, but I think you know Dan well enough that he would never intentionally call any of your family an abuser or molester in the real, hurtful sense of the word. Am I wrong in saying that to a degree, you've been hiding behind this hurt reaction to avoid really delving into how we perpetuate strange traditions (ones with more gravitas than fasting, like body alteration) without any real logical basis? I'd have liked to see you address this debate as observationally as you did the issue of Yom Kippur.
You can't fling words around like they have no meaning. You walk into a room and say "Whazzup ma niggaz". As I know you I know you mean nothing by it. That doesn't make the word any less wrong, and if a black man in Nando's (where you have walked in and said this to me) got up and punched you, he would be perfectly entitled to.
Australians fan's recently called black South African cricketers Kaffirs thinking it meant wanker. Doesn't matter, it's still vile.
As is child abuser. Molester abuser, same difference. Yes their are degrees of child abuse. But the degrees are all wrong. It goes from bad, to very bad, to unimaginably bad. Their isn't really anything that is mild child abuse. Anything that leaves emotional or physical scars on children is child abuse and it's bad.
Leaving aside for the moment that I think you believe circumcision is at least physical scaring, when you call it child abuse, you are saying to me, that I am, my father is, everyone I know, and in fact my entire 5000+ year old culture is a bunch of child abusers.
And then you wonder why I refuse to debate.
See I wouldn't be friendly with a child abuser. Not even a mild one because as I've said, abuse is abuse. If a friend smacked a child, I would be ok with that. I do not believe a smack is child abuse. Sometimes it's unnecessary, and sometimes, I believe it can do good. But I don't see a smack is child abuse. Now hitting your child is. I believe that I can tell the difference between a caring parent who does occasionally smack a child and a parent who calls it smacking but is beating, hitting or otherwise abusing their child. Curiously this is where this all started 2 years ago.
So you need to decide. If you honestly think it's child abuse do you really want to be friends with a child abuser? I certainly don't and if any of my friends abused their children they wouldn't not be my friends. No middle ground, I don't want to know people who abuse their children. I knew someone once who smoked doob whilst breast feeding because it kept the baby quiet. I'm not friends with them anymore.
I do not understand how you can call it child abuse and still want to be my friends. I simply don't. I understand you disagreeing with it. I don't understand you thinking it's vile enough to call child abuse and still associating with me in anyway.
So if you don't think it's child abuse, then you simply can't use incendiary words like that and expect debate. You certainly can't use words like that and accuse me of not having the debate because I know it's wrong.
I apologize for offending you. What do you want me to do? Your offense overriding the argument is precisely what I'm getting at. I'm not sorry Muslims are offended I hate burqas. I'm not sorry Christians are offended that I support women's rights. But I have to be sorry I disapprove of circumcision because it offends a friend of mine? Why do you get special circumstances? Either I believe something is wrong or I don't. No-one is giving me the "it's right" argument, so I have no alternative.
This is not a valid argument. You don't have to use offence words to have a discussion. I'm not offended that you disapprove of circumcision, I'm offended that you have called my dad something he is not. See the link about Kaffirs above. Same thing. The word is offensive, and as I explained above you can't have it both ways. Either I'm a child abuser and you shouldn't be my friend, as who wants to be friends with child abusers. Or you disagree with circumcision and are able to debate it rationally with out offending me. Saying because I am offended it proves it's wrong is not an argument of counter point at all even though is sounds like one.
I don't disagree 'violently'. Do you see me sending death-threats to doctors who circumcize babies? I just don't understand. You getting mad doesn't help me to understand, it makes me understand less. It makes me think: "There's nothing behind this but blind belief."
You call me a child abuser? That seems pretty militant to me. You get me mad using indicatory terms? And then say I'm not helping you understand. Again your argument saying "You are wrong because you cannot explain to me why you are right" is non valid. You're totally fair to think I am wrong, you're totally fair to be unconvinced by my arguments. But making me mad, and then saying "see, if you were in the right you wouldn't get mad" is argumentum ad hominem.
Are you kidding me? My anti-vivisectionist points on your blog were arguments. Points of view. They're not how I actually feel about vivisection. This is a key point of difference between us when we argue- I don't need to believe or agree with a perspective to understand it. I understand where anti-vivisectionists are coming from, what drives them. I don't agree with it. But I don't understand why a parent would cut on their child. I don't. I'm asking for explanation and all you're giving me is anger. And you think I'm angry about it- I'm really not. I'm confused.
You misunderstood me. I was saying that you have explained in animal testing that somethings are not right or wrong, but depends on your belief system
What I was saying is that the point you have made over animal testing applies to circumcision. It's not a right or wrong. It's not a black or white. It depends on your personal opinion. You are saying it doesn't, it's right or wrong, and your personal opinion isn't important.
I'm saying I see this more as you see animal testing, and was referencing your arguments for how people pro/anti is view it. I probably should have made this clearer.
It's true that I don't see the complexities. To me it seems almost axiomatic that you shouldn't cut on babies. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to hear the shades of grey. It does, however, seem to mean that you're unwilling to say them, and that makes me think there aren't any. Are there?
But it does. When you call it child abuse it does mean you are not willing to see shades of grey. A pro lifer calling abortion murder, is saying to me "I'm not interested in debating, I've made up my mind". A pro-foreskinner calling it child abuse tells me the same thing. If you are willing to hear the shades of grey you have to be willing to enter the debate differently.
Like the homeopathy debate there are some things that override opinion- they're called facts. This is a problem I see with the media at the moment, it's as if opinion has over-ridden fact. Sometimes if something is white it really is just white. Yes, I'm seeing white at the moment. If it's grey, tell me how it's grey.
This is my point. I see circumcision as based on your opinion and world view. Like the animal testing argument you made. You see it circumcision as something that is right or wrong based on fact. I see it as something that depends on your world view (as you explained re:animal testing). Ergo, can we debate something that we regard differently.
So you're saying that once someone has an opinion on something, discussing it with them becomes moot. That's really wierd.
Not at all. I'm asserting that if you say the sky is blue and I say the grass is green, there isn't a debate there.
Nor is there a debate if you say the sky is dark blue and I say it's light blue. Somethings aren't debatable because they are not about facts but about how one feels and both sides are entitled too feel the way both sides do.
I may have also mistakenly given the impression that I care about circumcision beyond having a strong opinion about it. I really don't. In fact I can barely think of a topic which has less impact on me personally. As an issue it will never, ever affect me.
You can't have it both ways. Either it's an abuse that's very wrong, and you should care and lobby, and stop being friends with those who do it.
Or you're not that bothered, in which case using vile words to describe your friends parents is only going to be offensive and nothing more.
If you really don't care about it this much, then why should I care about explaining my actions to you?
I care about abortion and animal testing enough for it to effect my voting. I care about the right to circumcision enough for it you affect my voting.
One day it's possible I meet a girl. Unlikely but possible. And it's possible we will have sex and maybe even children. And if one of those children's is a boy, and I will want to have it circumcised. If I do so in a Jewish Ceremony I would invite my friends to the the bris (circumcision ceremony). You may want to think now how you would feel about this.
I was using it to illustrate a point that people think culture is sacrosanct and can be used to justify practically anything, no matter how barbarous.
So whilst you are right, tradition is used to justify barbaric actions, you construct your argument in such a way that asserts if the only way you can justify a practice is by tradition, and if in the opinion of some it is barbaric, then unless it has some other justification it must be barbaric.
I assert, that some issues are more complex than that, and arguing based on tradition is a valid argument, since we don't live in isolation of our cultures.
Just because something is traditional doesn't make it barbaric or not barbaric.
Abortion is not traditional but a fairly new thing, especially since the many thousand of years of circumcision. Yet some regard it as barbaric and others don't.
Eating meat is very old, but not traditional in the sense we have discussed. Yet some might argue it's barbaric.
So whilst your statement that tradition is often used to justify barbaric actions, it in itself is merely a statement and not an argument for or against.
Don't ask me why I want this choice. // Thus I feel my point is proven.
How so? Don't ask me why I want to be married one day (and others don't believe in marriage) but I do. Just because one cannot articulate why they they feel strongly about something, doesn't make it wrong.
Explain why you are in love? You can be in love without explaining or understanding why. It doesn't mean just because you can't articulate something that the argument that love doesn't exist suddenly becomes valid.
Stupid things should be exposed for the stupid things they are.
Stupid is an opinion in this case. Not a fact or an absolute value.
As I have said I'm not going to discuss circumcision in the post. And I haven't. I have merely discussed the arguments around discussing it. I still think this is something that we may not be able to successfully debate, since I believe this is about how you feel and you seem to believe that this is about an absolute of being right or wrong. I may be wrong in my understanding of how you view the issue, but I'm not sure you can see my arguments as being valid. This is a problem in debate based on how you feel not facts. And this is not a debate about facts. Unless you believe that circumcision is child abuse is a fact. Then again I say, I can't debate that, because I'm not trying to prove or disprove facts but explain my world view, which I don't believe is right or wrong, merely mine.
I will however, when I get back to the UK write a blog post explaining my views on this.
I welcome the debate.
Nat, using female circumcision subverts the argument. The two aren't even comparative. The one does not hold up the other at all.
The two are not the same thing at all. It's a poor argument, and takes away from the discussion. It's like talking about whether smacking (not hitting) a child is abuse and then talking about raping babies being abuse.
I'm not hiding behind being hurt at all. I've said several times, I'm not willing to debate this if you are not open to debate, and in my opinion using the words "child abuse" implies you have made up your mind and not open to debate.
And calling my dad a child abuser, is deeply offensive. No matter what the intention behind the statement.
Dan has apologised, and I have accepted the apology, and Dan and I are all cool. Dan knows I know he wasn't being intentionally offensive. That doesn't mean I'm going to stand for myself of my father being called child abusers regardless.
As said, I've apologized to Adrian both here and via email about what I said. I spoke rashly and gave offence to a dear friend.I also assumed my own personal beliefs overrode the beliefs of millions of people, something I find annoying when I see it in others.
For the moment I will stop badgering Adrian for a direct answer regarding the original issue, he's said he'll blog about it and I'm interested to read that, in due time. I'll respond to a few things he said here, just for the sake of clarification.
See I wouldn't be friendly with a child abuser. Not even a mild one because as I've said, abuse is abuse. If a friend smacked a child, I would be ok with that. I do not believe a smack is child abuse.
See now we're getting into the shades of grey thing. I'm sure your aware that a great many people (my mother being one) are very opposed to smacking children, and consider it abuse. There are lobby groups against it and motions are requested to make it illegal and it comes up in the newsmedia as issue du jour about once a year. The NSPCC supports a "Full Stop" policy that advocates never hitting children, and classifies it as abuse on their homepage. I'm sure they've just classified friends of both you and I as child abusers. I don't see those friends in the same light as I would see a pedophile, and I don't think you should either. Abuse isn't just black or white, on or off- it is a continuum of action.
[I didn't add this to say I support or disapprove of physical discipline for children, just as an example of how wide a net the word abuse covers. My kids in school used to ask me if I ever wished they'd bring back the right for teachers to hit their students, and I'd always tell them quite honestly that even if they did, I couldn't bring myself to hit any of them, no matter what the circumstances]
Bullying has also been in the media as a form of child abuse. I'm sure you'd agree that if a child was emotionally attacked until s/he killed themselves, that is a dangerous form of abuse. But I've met the people who bullied me in High School as an adult, and I don't start screaming at them, I say hey how's it going and we have a sensible conversation, even though at one point you could have classified them as child abusers. Shades of grey. I didn't mean to imply I considered circumcision to be at the black end of the scale, although I can see how that meaning was taken and again regret that I didn't choose my words more carefully. But do I think it is on the scale? Yes, I do, and I don't think I'm being overly emotional or unreasonable when I do- indeed, reason is what is driving me.
So you need to decide. If you honestly think it's child abuse do you really want to be friends with a child abuser? I certainly don't and if any of my friends abused their children they wouldn't not be my friends. No middle ground, I don't want to know people who abuse their children. I knew someone once who smoked doob whilst breast feeding because it kept the baby quiet. I'm not friends with them anymore.
Actually I am friends with a couple who smoked when they were pregnant and I am still friends with them. Yes they screwed up and yes I voiced my concerns to them when I realized it was happening and they ignnored me (and many others), and they are now dealing with the fallout of their actions. But I haven't abandoned them. There is middle ground. There is grey area. It's a really shitty situation but it's not going to be improved by simply having all their friends abandon them for the crime of having an addiction. So I can consider circumcision to be a horrible thing and still be friends with parents who choose to do it. I don't have to love everything about a person to be their friend. I don't have to agree with every decision they make to respect them.
What I was saying is that the point you have made over animal testing applies to circumcision.
This is true- sorry for the misunderstanding, and that's a good analogy. So I guess the parallel question (compared to believing that humans are more important than animals) is: Does a parents rights over their child include a right to perform unneccessary surgery on their child? I don't think it does. And if I did, I'd have to concede that there are lots of other things that parents would then have the right to do.
You can't have it both ways. Either it's an abuse that's very wrong, and you should care and lobby, and stop being friends with those who do it.
I have opinions on almost every topic you care to name, I'm not obliged to make personal crusades out of every one of them. Admit it, you'd think it was super-wierd if I started an anti-circumcision lobby. Wouldn't it be? I don't need to have it 'both ways'. I've got an opinion on something, something which frankly is not important to me. I've got a long list of things I would lobby for before I would get to circumcision. And besides, there are lots of things that I don't like, but I don't want them all to be illegal, because one of the things I like least is a government that thinks it has the right to enforce itself over every aspect of a person's life.
I'll never vote for a government that bans circumcision. What I want is logical people. I want reasoning people. I want people, when taking action that might harm another, to say: "Why am I doing this?" and if the answer is nonsensical, they should stop.
Just because something is traditional doesn't make it barbaric or not barbaric.
Absolutely. And I'm actually a big fan of tradition. I still go to midnight mass every year, despite having broken my ties with the church. Why? Because I've done it for 28 years and I ain't stopping now. It's silly, I know. But it doesn't hurt anyone. It only affects me. It's a seperate issue. You're right, tradition does not equal barbaric. But neither can barbarism be excused by tradition, and in this case I believe it is. I honeslty believe the only reason circumcision is still being practiced is because it's traditional. And I just don't think that's good enough.
Eating meat is very old, but not traditional in the sense we have discussed. Yet some might argue it's barbaric.
Totally! And you know what I do when my vegetarian friends lecture me on the evils of eating meat? I take another bite.
t doesn't mean just because you can't articulate something that the argument that love doesn't exist suddenly becomes valid.
Love doesn't harm anyone. Marriage, er, generally doesn't harm anyone. Burqas harm people. Terrorism harms people. My point wasn't that inexplicable things were inherently evil, but that if they result in a negative, they probably need a little explanation.
One day it's possible I meet a girl. Unlikely but possible. And it's possible we will have sex and maybe even children. And if one of those children's is a boy, and I will want to have it circumcised. If I do so in a Jewish Ceremony I would invite my friends to the the bris (circumcision ceremony). You may want to think now how you would feel about this.
Okay, I'm treading very carefully here. Let's say I had a baby and you got a card saying that in order to celebrate this event I was having my tattoo replicated onto my baby, and you were invited to the tattooing ceremony. How would you respond to that?
I still think this is something that we may not be able to successfully debate
I think we're doing okay! I'm certainly learning a lot. I don't always feel the need to win or lose debates- I just like learning.
using female circumcision subverts the argument. The two aren't even comparative.
I disagree. When I said that FGM was worse than circumcision, I was comparing one to the other- so they must be comparable. Now, FGM is a much, much more horrible thing than circumcision, absolutely and without doubt. But if you're making a Venn diagram called 'Unneccessary Nonconsensual Radical Genital Surgery', those are definitely your two main occupants. And FGM is done primarily for traditional/cultural reasons. If you allow tradition to excuse circumcision, it logically follows that it should excuse FGM as well.
I will however, when I get back to the UK write a blog post explaining my views on this.
I'm looking forward to it, and I respect your views and beliefs, particularly when they differ from mine. I'm sorry my rash words were disrespectful of you and yours.
There's a race of people in Africa or Polynesia or somewhere a long way from here who, like many cultures, have a rite of passage and initiation ceremony for boys who reach manhood. When this happens, the men of the village go into retreat for a couple of weeks and the boys undergo the various rituals required by their tradition and culture.
One of those rituals demands that the boy being initiated performs fellatio on the men. (I don't recall if it's everyone present or just one in particular).
The thing is that in their country this is a) legal and b) culturally accepted. Although the boys are essentially forced to do this (how can they achieve manhood if they don't?), they don't appear to have any mental scars or other hangups about it because it's what they do.
Is it right?
Can you imagine what would happen if a small town or village in this country decided this was an appropriate way to celebrate a rite of passage into adulthood for the boys in their community? Or even the girls?
It is traditional, cultural and legal in various Middle Eastern countries to chop off the hands of thieves. Would that make it morally right and acceptable in this country?
Many countries - including states in the US - still have a death penalty. Does that make it right? Why have we in the UK banned it?
I believe that ritual and non-consensual circumcision is wrong. In answer to your question, Adrian, if you invited me to your son's bris (not that you would, but if you did) I would decline because I don't approve. I do, however, accept that you are legally entitled to go ahead with the ceremony.
Would I fall out with you over it? Let's put it this way: a similarly provocative and emotive subject was foxhunting. I was the only member of my (country dwelling) family who disapproved of it. I have many friends who used to regularly hunt. They no longer hunt (and are angry about it) but they're still my friends.
And just like I never felt strongly enough to attend a protest, go on a march or lobby my MP about foxhunting, nor would I do so about 'ritual' circumcision.
Dan - nicely controversial topic here. I salute you on a job well done!