205
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by trucy@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

aka non consented circumcision is a human rights violations rule

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] faceless@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

thats not the reason people do circumcision. most people do it for religious purposes. to argue that it is a human rights violation is to argue that people are not allowed to have a religion. religions such as Judaism circumcise because to show that they made a covenant with god. it is a huge important part of Judaism. you cant take away peoples religious beliefs if they arent being enforced on people who arent in that belief.

[-] Blum0108@lemmy.world 38 points 10 months ago

Forced genital mutilation on people that are unable to consent.

How do you feel about female genital mutilation?

[-] faceless@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

while I think its harmful (it can cause severe inflammation leading to hospital visits) im not going to force others to conform to that belief

[-] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 19 points 10 months ago

Where do you draw the line? Human sacrifices used to be a common religious practice, but surely you wouldn't argue that we shouldn't force others to conform to the belief that murder is wrong.

Personally I think religious practices that cause actual harm to others deserve no protection. Beliefs are just beliefs, religious or otherwise. If I believe I should be allowed to mutilate others without consequence, no one would defend my right to "practice" my belief; but if it's part of a longstanding religious tradition it just gets a pass?

Traditions are only as good as the underlying reasons for them. If those have been forgotten or are otherwise no longer relevant, the tradition needs new justification just as any other new idea does.

[-] Rachelhazideas@lemy.lol 35 points 10 months ago

Religion doesn't supercede bodily autonomy. Period.

Your rights to practice religion ends when it starts infringing on the rights of another person. You are not entitled to harming others for your own religious needs.

You can do whatever you want with your own body in the name of religion. Just do not mutilate your own child.

Imagine if a different religion warrants cutting off the nipples of newborns, or ripping off a nail, or skinning a toe. That is how barbaric you sound when you say 'it's fine to cut off the skin of my child's penis'.

[-] naught@sh.itjust.works 24 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Are you aware the majority of Americans are not jewish but were subjected to genital mutilation after birth? It is not a religious thing here primarily, it's a practice that was started by a prude named Kellog to explicitly make it more difficult to masturbate and because it is "cleaner," which is a dubious claim at best.

[-] faceless@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

yeah outside religion I don't know why Kellogg did that. im talking about the type used for religious purposes.

[-] naught@sh.itjust.works 13 points 10 months ago

He did it to sexually stunt America in the name of Christianity and his warped morality. I would say that if a religion mandates you do something barbaric, then that practice should still be outlawed. I believe in a secular state where the rules of society and the greater good take precedence over myopic religious practices.

Similarly how the right to free speech does to let you go around making threats etc., the freedom of religion must not allow for crimes -- which I consider infant genital mutilation to be.

[-] shani66@lemmy.comfysnug.space 7 points 10 months ago

"outside of the reason he did it i have no idea why he did it"

[-] doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 10 months ago

To be clear, nobody is saying that circumcision is always a human rights violation. Only when it is done to a child who cannot consent. If an adult were to choose to get circumcised then that would be his right.

you cant take away peoples religious beliefs if they arent being enforced on people who arent in that belief.

This is exactly the problem. Children are typically circumcised shortly after birth. They are not part of any belief and cannot even speak, let alone consent to something as serious and irreversible as a circumcision. It is being forced on them.

People are allowed to have and practice their religion. They should not be allowed to force their beliefs on others, even their own kids.

If course this all ignores the fact that many circumcisions (in the US at least) are not performed for explicitly religious reasons.

[-] TIMMAY@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago

But they can take away my foreskin without my consent? No, fuck that and fuck the religions that normalize the mutilation of children's genitals. Wild that I even have to say that to you.

[-] Chakravanti@sh.itjust.works 17 points 10 months ago

They're enforcing their "belief" on people who cannot believe let alone consent.

[-] smooth_jazz_warlady@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 10 months ago

Okay, but why should it be acceptable to induct a child into a religion from the moment of birth, spend their formative years being taught a belief system that they have no ability to think critically about, while isolating them from alternative systems of belief? Why shouldn't it be the norm to raise your children on the idea of all religious beliefs or lack thereof being equally valid and plausible, that we can't prove one or another definitively true so it becomes a matter of "what do you chose to have blind faith in?", and let them decide as an adult?

[-] Zirconium@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

TIL genital mutilation is religious purpose

this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
205 points (100.0% liked)

196

16501 readers
2619 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS