Sewora said:
To point something out for you since you felt it appropriate to mention Buddhists. A child marked by irreversible surgery without consent is deprived of religious freedom. Since you are in fact not allowed to be Buddhist if you are circumsized.
You just made that up, or you've conducted some rather poor research.
There may be some Buddhists willing to tell you such things through their own personal beliefs (because religion is inevitably tainted by some peoples' opinions, given that it is a large part of some peoples' lives, and people often feel the need to justify the things they oppose or do not oppose, so what better way than to claim it's the will of your way of life), but in its core beliefs, Buddhism's way is to accept everyone, that everyone can achieve enlightenment and Nirvana, and that everyone is already destined to be there, in fact, one day. It is among the last religions that would condemn you for something that happened to your body without consent, no matter its scope, and it does not turn away those who wish to learn their ways and join their ranks. That said, some factions probably discourage circumcision, and I'm pretty sure it's not the default practice, but that doesn't mean you're considered tainted for having it done.
Don't bullshit people in an attempt to win an argument, especially when you have no idea what you're talking about.
Sewora said:
Is religious freedom a human right, or are you not allowed to decide that for yourself either? Where do we draw the line?
You can decide whatever the hell you want to believe, and as I've demonstrated above, chances are it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the state of your penis. I'd go so far as to say those that
would condemn such a thing are not something that is worth believing in, though, not that anyone asked me.
Sewora said:
The right to an intact body is as important as the right to be who you are, whether it's assexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, a goth, metalhead, indian, black or white.. The list goes on.
Your appearance is ephemeral and fleeting; your body has absolutely no chance of being in tact throughout your life. You will be irrevocably changed many times over the course of your existence, and most of those changes will be completely without your consent.
Who you are and who you will become endure throughout your life, though. Aspects will change, develop, or be outgrown, but ultimately who you are at your core is the only thing about you that will remain the same in your life. Thus it and your body, while related, are nowhere near comparable in importance.
Sewora said:
You are proposing that just because someone feels one way about something, everyone else has to without having the option to say otherwise.
Did no such thing. My stance from the beginning was that there are more important things to direct your attention to. It doesn't have to be unimportant to you, but what one has no control over is ultimately something one's worry is wasted on; all we can do is focus on what we can shape ourselves, and endeavor to make the right decision on those matters in our own eyes, hopefully without harming others.
Sewora said:
You cannot force circumcision upon adults,
You can force anything on anyone, with the right approach.
Sewora said:
but you can do it to children because they don't have the power to say no, and that justifies everything you do to them in your opinion.
Never said anything of the sort, nor do I believe it. Also, not everything we consent to is what's best for us, but I'll touch on that later.
Sewora said:
And you back that belief up by saying that sexuality is different between people as the people themselves are between each other.
You have a fondness for drawing parallels between things that have remarkable little relation.
Sewora said:
The diversity of people is only possible because we as a species has understood the value in diversity, and the value of freedom, choice and sexuality.
This is so unbelievably wrong it hurts. Are you seriously claiming that the reason diversity exists is because we've accepted it does? Seriously?
Shit, some personality traits and cultural phenomenon are born because of a
lack of acceptance from others.
Sewora said:
The surgical removal of a healthy body part from any individual without fully informed consent of the individual is a violation of medical ethics aswell.
Unethical behaviour leads to unethical decisions, and unethical decisions on any larger scale leads to pain and misery. And I shouldn't have to point out any specific historical eras or events for you to understand what that means.
So if I may draw a conclusion, what you're saying is that anything done to a person without their explicit consent is a unethical.
It may surprise you, then, that a lot of what people do to others without their consent is for the sake of their well-being, or their perceived well-being; I'm going to find it hard to believe that if you got in a car accident and would have bled to death without intervention, but weren't able to state your opinion on the matter, you'd criticize the parties responsible for attempting to save your life. Not comparable in scope, of course, but comparable in essence.
This thought process is what a lot of parents go down when making a child's decisions for them, because the kid can't speak on their approval of the matter. Despite your incredible vehemence on the matter, circumcision isn't a big deal to most people, and most parents do it in a perceived best interest for their child, and nine times out of ten (if that few in cases) the person isn't affected by it one way or the other. It may have even ended up being - gasp and alarm - for their own good, whether you like it or not.
On that note, let me present a different perspective: Let's suppose some people are indeed better off for having their junk "mutilated", as so many of you are fond of saying. Let's say that some people who haven't had the procedure would also be better off if they did. Most of them aren't going to get it done anyway. Why? Because they've grown up with the thing as they know it. People tend to be reluctant to permanently change themselves, even for their own good, especially when that change involves a sharp metal object slicing their flesh. We tend to get used to the status quo, to being uncomfortable because it's what we know.
Now, I've no argument for people having their own say in what happens to themselves, but what if they would have been better off if their say on the matter was ignored? Is it wrong then? What's more, are you going to claim that the people who have been wronged by this procedure (in reality or entirely in their minds) outnumber those that benefited from it, or that the latter's opinion is inferior because it was without their consent?
Sewora said:
Then there's the fact that circumcision is still a widely accepted procedure for many US physicians because it's too lucrative and emberrasing to stop.
It's not a matter of making money, but rather to avoid losing money.
They fear that if they refuse to honour a parent?s request for a non-therapeutic circumcision, the parent will take their business elsewhere and the physician will lose potential income for the duration of his relationship with the family.
I could write a book on my annoyance with how many things are done to us in a doctor's office solely to support the business model that is American medical, but that's a gripe for another discussion.
