|
Post by fixit on Oct 23, 2014 16:33:37 GMT -5
If cutting the tips off fingers was a ceremonial religious practise I wouldn't lump it together with the Islamist practise of cutting off heads. Of course you wouldn't. You have made it clear that it is not the removal of healthy tissue for no medical reason that you find to be morally offensive. You have focused on only the removal of healthy tissue from females to be morally offensive. Personally, I think genital modification, male or female, for no medical reason, without the consent of the owner, is unethical. I'm not really disagreeing with you except that FGM can be more akin to removing the penis entirely. Note that the WHO recommends male circumcision for health reasons, and you'd be better taking it up with them rather than me.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Oct 23, 2014 16:38:26 GMT -5
Not sure about fingers but in Saudi and some other Muslim countries they do cut the hands off people who steal. Apparently it is safe to leave your doors open when you go out due to the severity of such punishment. Maybe this has changed in recent years? In most Muslim countries however, even people's houses have bars on all the windows because of the high crime rate.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Oct 23, 2014 16:53:40 GMT -5
If cutting the tips off fingers was a ceremonial religious practise I wouldn't lump it together with the Islamist practise of cutting off heads. Of course you wouldn't. You have made it clear that it is not the removal of healthy tissue for no medical reason that you find to be morally offensive. You have focused on only the removal of healthy tissue from females to be morally offensive. Personally, I think genital modification, male or female, for no medical reason, without the consent of the owner, is unethical. Oh, come on! The implications you are making here take "rationality" to the point of absurdity. Yet again. (I'm not normally into ad hominen attacks, but I am sure considering it here.) I agree male circumcision is a barbaric practice. Yes, I know there is a whole "reclaim your foreskin" movement out there, and all I can say is "You go guys!". Yet I personally know adult males who have chosen to undergo this procedure for various reasons. Male circumcision should not happen. Except as a conscious choice by adult males. (And I am astounded by the Hollywood personalities who have chosen this for their male infants even in the past few years. (Not even Jewish.) Why???) But to equate it to the FGM perpetuated on millions of defenseless older (4+ years) females by their fathers, grandmothers, and mothers (frequently out in the desert with a couple of sharp rocks, without the benefit of anesthetic) presents a whole new level of dismissiveness (and, yes) barbarism.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 23, 2014 17:13:56 GMT -5
Not sure about fingers but in Saudi and some other Muslim countries they do cut the hands off people who steal. Apparently it is safe to leave your doors open when you go out due to the severity of such punishment. Maybe this has changed in recent years? In most Muslim countries however, even people's houses have bars on all the windows because of the high crime rate. All the severe Islamic laws don't result in a fairer less violent society. Women can get acid thrown in their face for not covering up their face properly. Women have to have four males witnesses to bring a rape charge. What kind of warped ideology is that?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 23, 2014 18:54:27 GMT -5
Of course you wouldn't. You have made it clear that it is not the removal of healthy tissue for no medical reason that you find to be morally offensive. You have focused on only the removal of healthy tissue from females to be morally offensive. Personally, I think genital modification, male or female, for no medical reason, without the consent of the owner, is unethical. I'm not really disagreeing with you except that FGM can be more akin to removing the penis entirely. Note that the WHO recommends male circumcision for health reasons, and you'd be better taking it up with them rather than me. Again, it is not the severity of the procedure that makes it ethical or unethical. If you believe that genital modification is unethical then circumcision of either sex is unethical.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 23, 2014 18:55:52 GMT -5
Not sure about fingers but in Saudi and some other Muslim countries they do cut the hands off people who steal. Apparently it is safe to leave your doors open when you go out due to the severity of such punishment. Maybe this has changed in recent years? In most Muslim countries however, even people's houses have bars on all the windows because of the high crime rate. All the severe Islamic laws don't result in a fairer less violent society. Women can get acid thrown in their face for not covering up their face properly. Women have to have four males witnesses to bring a rape charge. What kind of warped ideology is that? I think it is theology.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 23, 2014 19:07:10 GMT -5
Of course you wouldn't. You have made it clear that it is not the removal of healthy tissue for no medical reason that you find to be morally offensive. You have focused on only the removal of healthy tissue from females to be morally offensive. Personally, I think genital modification, male or female, for no medical reason, without the consent of the owner, is unethical. Oh, come on! The implications you are making here take "rationality" to the point of absurdity. Yet again. (I'm not normally into ad hominen attacks, but I am sure considering it here.) I agree male circumcision is a barbaric practice. Yes, I know there is a whole "reclaim your foreskin" movement out there, and all I can say is "You go guys!". Yet I personally know adult males who have chosen to undergo this procedure for various reasons. Male circumcision should not happen. Except as a conscious choice by adult males. (And I am astounded by the Hollywood personalities who have chosen this for their male infants even in the past few years. (Not even Jewish.) Why???) But to equate it to the FGM perpetuated on millions of defenseless older (4+ years) females by their fathers, grandmothers, and mothers (frequently out in the desert with a couple of sharp rocks, without the benefit of anesthetic) presents a whole new level of dismissiveness (and, yes) barbarism. Now that you have that off your chest, can you explain how it is absurd to believe that circumcision can be ethical for males but not for females? You describe FGM with a couple of sharp rocks out in the desert but how does that differ from male circumcision using the same tools in the same location? I was implying that the morality of genital modification is the same for males and females.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 23, 2014 19:29:32 GMT -5
I'm not really disagreeing with you except that FGM can be more akin to removing the penis entirely. Note that the WHO recommends male circumcision for health reasons, and you'd be better taking it up with them rather than me. Again, it is not the severity of the procedure that makes it ethical or unethical. If you believe that genital modification is unethical then circumcision of either sex is unethical. And if its unethical to kill a pig for food then its unethical to kill a cabbage for food.
|
|
|
Post by applesandbacon on Oct 23, 2014 20:55:03 GMT -5
Oh, come on! The implications you are making here take "rationality" to the point of absurdity. Yet again. (I'm not normally into ad hominen attacks, but I am sure considering it here.) I agree male circumcision is a barbaric practice. Yes, I know there is a whole "reclaim your foreskin" movement out there, and all I can say is "You go guys!". Yet I personally know adult males who have chosen to undergo this procedure for various reasons. Male circumcision should not happen. Except as a conscious choice by adult males. (And I am astounded by the Hollywood personalities who have chosen this for their male infants even in the past few years. (Not even Jewish.) Why???) But to equate it to the FGM perpetuated on millions of defenseless older (4+ years) females by their fathers, grandmothers, and mothers (frequently out in the desert with a couple of sharp rocks, without the benefit of anesthetic) presents a whole new level of dismissiveness (and, yes) barbarism. Now that you have that off your chest, can you explain how it is absurd to believe that circumcision can be ethical for males but not for females? You describe FGM with a couple of sharp rocks out in the desert but how does that differ from male circumcision using the same tools in the same location? I was implying that the morality of genital modification is the same for males and females. Would it be more unethical or immoral for a young boy to have his whole penis removed, rather than just the foreskin? What if instead of removing the foreskin, it was wrapped around the top of the penis and sewed shut leaving a pinprick hole that would allow only a small dribble of urine or ejaculate to escape? Do you believe in varying degrees of unethical or immoral behavior? Also, note that Sharon Arnold never said male circumcision was ethical. She only implied that, in terms of pain suffered during and after the procedure, female circumcision is "worse". Sort of like your argument on other threads that a 23 year old having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend is a lot different than infant rape, though both are illegal, and depending on who you talk to, unethical.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Oct 23, 2014 20:58:39 GMT -5
Now that you have that off your chest, Yeah, yeah I know. can you explain how it is absurd to believe that circumcision can be ethical for males but not for females? You describe FGM with a couple of sharp rocks out in the desert but how does that differ from male circumcision using the same tools in the same location? I was implying that the morality of genital modification is the same for males and females. I never even remotely implied that circumcision was ethical for males – unless it was a conscious decision by an adult male for (arguably, modest) health benefits or for religious reasons… Their body, their decision. Perhaps in a theoretical, just for the sake of argument, sort of way, one might concede that the “morality’ (in the sense of simply separating ‘right’ vs ‘wrong’) of genital modification without an individual's full and informed consent is somewhat equivalent, regardless of whether they are male or female. However, to equate female genital mutilation to male circumcision is quite repugnant to me. (The emotional reaction comes from accounts I have read from women who have experienced this – Ayaan Hirsii Ali’s writings are a good place to start if anyone is interested. But there are many more.) There is a reason why people are no longer using the term "female circumcision". The downside of male circumcision (to my current understanding, not that I would know) is that there may be decreased sensation during intercourse. The upside would be that there may be certain health benefits - which is where WHO comes in. The downsides to female genital mutilation (and there are degrees of severity depending on the circumstances) include death from bleeding, chronic infections, painful menstruation, severe pain from intercourse (don’t even consider that there could be pleasure associated with intercourse!), sterility, and complications during child birth. The ONLY upside (and God help me, I am really reaching here) would be that a female might have feelings of being accepted by her community which she might not have if she was not mutilated.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 23, 2014 22:24:20 GMT -5
Again, it is not the severity of the procedure that makes it ethical or unethical. If you believe that genital modification is unethical then circumcision of either sex is unethical. And if its unethical to kill a pig for food then its unethical to kill a cabbage for food. A better analogy more closely related to the discussion would be: And if it's unethical to kill a male human for food then its unethical to kill a female human for food. If you believe genetic modification is an ethical procedure for males but is an unethical procedure for females that is fine. I only meant to point out that genital modification is genital modification, regardless of the sex of the victim. It brings to mind a story told about Churchill or perhaps Shaw. Churchill overheard a woman saying that she would do anything for a million pounds. Churchill asked the woman if she would sleep with him for 5 pounds. The woman exclaimed "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!" "Madam", Church responded, "we’ve already established what kind of a woman you are. Now we are haggling about the price." We have already established that circumcision, male or female, is genital modification. Now the question is how much damage has to be done before it is condemned.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 23, 2014 22:50:16 GMT -5
Would it be more unethical or immoral for a young boy to have his whole penis removed, rather than just the foreskin? What if instead of removing the foreskin, it was wrapped around the top of the penis and sewed shut leaving a pinprick hole that would allow only a small dribble of urine or ejaculate to escape? Do you believe in varying degrees of unethical or immoral behavior? Like the word unique, I believe that the words ethical and moral are absolute modifiers. Just as something cannot be more unique something cannot be more ethical. If your moral compass identifies stealing as immoral behavior, stealing $1.00 is as immoral as stealing $100.00. Describing various procedures with severity ranging from 1 to 10 does not change the underlying morality of the act. OK And the point there was that when you define a subject as sensitive and emotionally charged as CSA too broadly there is the potential for causing more harm than good. It makes dealing with the offender less effective. Treating all abuse victims the same has the potential of causing additional harm.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 23, 2014 23:23:40 GMT -5
I never even remotely implied that circumcision was ethical for males – unless it was a conscious decision by an adult male for (arguably, modest) health benefits or for religious reasons… Their body, their decision. I posted: Personally, I think genital modification, male or female, for no medical reason, without the consent of the owner, is unethical.Your response was: Oh, come on!
The implications you are making here take "rationality" to the point of absurdity. I took that as opposition to my claim of circumcision being unethical. I can see that my inference could have been off the mark. There is a reason. People accept, in general, male circumcision. The term mutilation has a much stronger 'punch'. And some slight reduction of HIV perhaps. And the some reduction of specific diseases for their partners. I can see you have not researched all of the potential complications than might accompany male circumcision! But the downside of the female procedure seems well researched! Does a reduction of HIV-2 infection count as an upside? I don't really think we have an argument here. Although you usually do present cogent arguments! FWIW - Getting various groups to stop this practice seems to be an uphill battle. There are groups that limit their practice to category 1 - small cut with no tissue removed. More of a symbolic circumcision. Maybe that is an easier route to propose.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 23, 2014 23:54:02 GMT -5
And if its unethical to kill a pig for food then its unethical to kill a cabbage for food. A better analogy more closely related to the discussion would be: And if it's unethical to kill a male human for food then its unethical to kill a female human for food. If you believe genetic modification is an ethical procedure for males but is an unethical procedure for females that is fine. I only meant to point out that genital modification is genital modification, regardless of the sex of the victim. It brings to mind a story told about Churchill or perhaps Shaw. Churchill overheard a woman saying that she would do anything for a million pounds. Churchill asked the woman if she would sleep with him for 5 pounds. The woman exclaimed "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!" "Madam", Church responded, "we’ve already established what kind of a woman you are. Now we are haggling about the price." We have already established that circumcision, male or female, is genital modification. Now the question is how much damage has to be done before it is condemned. By comparing the two you're belittling the enormous amount of suffering caused to women and girls by this evil practise. I'm not advocating for circumcision, just saying that it can hardly be compared with FGM.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Oct 24, 2014 0:54:25 GMT -5
I think male circumcision is nothing compared with female genital mutilation. Here is one thing they have in common - non-diseased living tissue is removed from the genital area in both cases resulting in a permanent change to the individual involved. As in the case of CSA, there is a wide range of things that are all grouped under a single heading. The ethical consideration for circumcision, male and/or female, should not depend on on the severity of the procedure. Would you support female circumcision that involved only the removal of the clitoral hood, roughly the equivalent of removing the foreskin of a male? Absolutely not!!!
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Oct 24, 2014 1:59:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Oct 24, 2014 2:04:53 GMT -5
This thread started being about Billy Graham, then it evolved into sex, then genitals, then genital mutilation.
|
|
|
Post by applesandbacon on Oct 24, 2014 5:50:35 GMT -5
Theoretically, but in practice we make decisions between varying degrees of unethical behavior all the time. Take lying for example: It is unethical to tell your child that some of their toys "are probably lost" rather than admitting you took them to the thrift store? I say yes, but not nearly as unethical as say, lying in court, or lying about an affair. Outside of classrooms, ethics is much more situational. Using your stealing analogy, I would say that is much less unethical to take 4 quarters out of your mom's coin jar to feed the parking meter, than to take $100 out of her purse to buy drugs. Which is exactly how I feel about genital mutilation/female circumcision. I dislike the idea of elective surgery for newborn boys. I also find it unethical. Female circumcision is quantitatively worse, in terms of tissue damage, pain involved, and future impairment. To group them together is an attempt to "normalize" female circumcision, which makes dealing with the practice less effective. It has to potential to cause additional harm to women who have suffered years of pain and loss of sexuality as a result of female circumcision.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 24, 2014 8:14:51 GMT -5
A better analogy more closely related to the discussion would be: And if it's unethical to kill a male human for food then its unethical to kill a female human for food. If you believe genetic modification is an ethical procedure for males but is an unethical procedure for females that is fine. I only meant to point out that genital modification is genital modification, regardless of the sex of the victim. It brings to mind a story told about Churchill or perhaps Shaw. Churchill overheard a woman saying that she would do anything for a million pounds. Churchill asked the woman if she would sleep with him for 5 pounds. The woman exclaimed "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!" "Madam", Church responded, "we’ve already established what kind of a woman you are. Now we are haggling about the price." We have already established that circumcision, male or female, is genital modification. Now the question is how much damage has to be done before it is condemned. By comparing the two you're belittling the enormous amount of suffering caused to women and girls by this evil practise. No, I am saying they are both unethical acts. The factors they have in common is that they both are procedures that remove healthy tissue for reasons that are not a benefit to the individual and it is done without the individual's consent. If you believe that genital modification, without consent and for no medical reason, is unethical then we agree on that point. If you believe that male genital modification, without consent and for no medical reason, is ethical then we do not agree on that point.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 24, 2014 8:19:28 GMT -5
This thread started being about Billy Graham, then it evolved into sex, then genitals, then genital mutilation. Isn't that part of the beauty of an open discussion board? Like people sitting around a dinner table and having a discussion that ranges with the interests of the group.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 24, 2014 8:43:14 GMT -5
Theoretically, but in practice we make decisions between varying degrees of unethical behavior all the time. Take lying for example: It is unethical to tell your child that some of their toys "are probably lost" rather than admitting you took them to the thrift store? I say yes, but not nearly as unethical as say, lying in court, or lying about an affair. Outside of classrooms, ethics is much more situational. Using your stealing analogy, I would say that is much less unethical to take 4 quarters out of your mom's coin jar to feed the parking meter, than to take $100 out of her purse to buy drugs. I wonder if there would be interest in starting a thread discussing ethical behavior. There have been books written about it ( Les Misérables or Raskolnikov's actions in Crime and Punishment come to mind) and there are certainly different opinions. applesandbacon has suggested that stealing small things is not as unethical as stealing large things. And that the reasons for stealing modify the morality of the action. - coins for parking vs. money for drugs. But is this more self-justification and rationalization than a modification of the ethics of the action? I don't see how this normalized female circumcision/FGM. I wonder how many people who have children elected to have their children circumcised? I would assume none had their female children circumcised. But the males? Would making that decision change how circumcision is viewed and make it more comfortable to think of FGM as a horrible and unethical while all but ignoring MGM, which is really what male circumcision really is, just to a lessor degree. There would be no discussion if male circumcision involved removing a portion of the glans penis (an event which is not unheard of during male circumcision).
|
|
|
Post by applesandbacon on Oct 24, 2014 10:27:43 GMT -5
And we can move from there to a discussion of universal morality versus relative morality. Fun for the whole family!
I'll go first: I don't have any male children, but I have witnessed circumcisions on male newborns, and vowed never to do that to any children of my own. But I still think female circumcision is even more physically and emotionally damaging, and therefore morally "worse".
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 24, 2014 12:06:42 GMT -5
I moved this response to somewhere else. The Jump on Board forum, I think.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 24, 2014 16:20:29 GMT -5
This thread started being about Billy Graham, then it evolved into sex, then genitals, then genital mutilation. amazing huh! It is always interesting to see threads 'devolve' or evolve. Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes it's just plain interesting.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Oct 25, 2014 22:04:39 GMT -5
Isn't that part of the beauty of an open discussion board? Like people sitting around a dinner table and having a discussion that ranges with the interests of the group. Exactly! That's why I don't understand why people are disturbed about topics that wander all over in discussion. There's nothing "formal" about this board, and we mostly hate rules, right?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 26, 2014 7:21:58 GMT -5
Isn't that part of the beauty of an open discussion board? Like people sitting around a dinner table and having a discussion that ranges with the interests of the group. Exactly! That's why I don't understand why people are disturbed about topics that wander all over in discussion. There's nothing "formal" about this board, and we mostly hate rules, right? :) I certainly do and I am trying to get my grandchildren to come to grips with why the rules apply to them and not me! Actually, when I am in charge there are many less rules than when mom, dad, and grandma are around! "You let those kids use the axe?!? They could have chopped their toes off." But the truth is - they didn't lose any toes and they will be able to split wood for me in my dotage, which is fast approaching!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2014 18:39:47 GMT -5
You aren't going to read about it in any history of the Christian Church written or vetted by the Catholic Church - but "back then", reading between the lines, we can see all sorts of breakaway churches. People who "loved this present world" or "left us because they were never a part of us" or found the preachers "bodily presence weak" or rebelled against the authority of the workers and were not "spared" etc. - they usually went about to establish rival churches. Why is it that people who support the 2x2 ministry get bitter and twisted over anyone starting a local church? Churches have been breaking away for hundreds of yrs. Do you think god is only in the hearts of the friends and workers? Can you not see the kingdom of god is spread far wider than one group of believers? "bitter and twisted"? Is that what you call Jude, Peter, John and Paul in their references to people not satisfied with the Apostolic Church?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Oct 27, 2014 22:27:56 GMT -5
Pruebert I dont see 2x2 ministry as apostolic. Their giftings dont line up. I wasnt referring to any bible character either.
|
|