The Federation, what would it take for you to join?

[Avechbobo]

With all respect, your ideas of Christians seems to be either stuck in the Victorian era, or is base upon a extremely small (but vocal) group of individuals. And not the mainstream majority.

To the contrary, you have very well argued for my concerns by stating that you

had lessons on this in Christian school, as well as creation science, intelligent design and several other origin of species concepts.

Yeah, what a hell of thought through and scientific concepts those are, aren't they? You mean like the concept of the stork bringing children and virgin birth? In case you didn't know yet: We don't know (yet), therefore God did it is not a theory, neither a thesis nor even a concept. It's the equivalent to saying I don't know why water is liquid, therefore it just is.

Creation "science" and ID. I know this is asocial, but lol. The "science" telling you to give up, give credit to magic and create more questions by definition than to answer. Yay for human progress!

There seems to be an increasing trend among some Christian high schools and colleges to abandon creation science in favor of theistic evolution (intelligent design)

Good institutions, still going strong on quack but titling themselves high schools.

As for what your education experience and the rest of the US public education system is, here is the hint: You don't get to criticise a good - theoretical - system B just because system A works better at the moment because of nobody caring about system B. There are many countries where normal schools do successfully what they're supposed to: Teach and educate.
Of course if system B is public education and is flawed, people switch to system A. Once B is at a good standard, you don't need A anymore.

It's really like saying that all the food, drug and vehicle safety administrations are given to totally private companies and we'll let them dictate how to safely operate a 747 or what ingredients to prohibit in food. The current state has a reason for being like it is: Some people agreed that governmental control of safety issues is best. You don't get to set your own limitations and boundaries.

Human females forbidden, Human males no government legal position. Or perhaps a stipulation that the procedure (on males) is performed by a trained professional.

I disagree. Both forbidden.

EDIT:
Also, regarding private education: I think I did say that if it's only about the improved quality of the education, about more covered topics like economy or IT, about having more competent teachers or more time for the classes or for special need children, I don't oppose it. It's all about religious, ideological and unscientific "education".

 

[Myasishchev]

I wonder if the Federation permits circumcision.

Of males or females?

Either or both. Presumably it would bar female circumcision, inasmuch as no civilized people practice it (by definition), its very rationale is abhorrent, and it is universally condemned. One would hope it would also bar male circumcision as well. (Of course the two are not really mappable: the male equivalent to the usual female circumcision practice would be lopping off the glans, which is illegal everywhere. I mean, foreskins are pretty important too, but there is a hierarchy here. Some commentators have supposed that one of the purposes behind the brit milah is the same as the primary purpose of female circumcision, however.)

There's pretty much no good reason for male circumcision. (One assumes that a mitzvah or sharia rule is not a good reason. Phimosis is a good reason, although there are alternatives to full circumcision in that case.)

Especially given the ridiculously powerful medical techniques the Fed possesses, there would be absolutely no practical reason to permit parents to circumcise their children, since the problems with elective surgery would still permit Jews and such to fulfill their religious obligations without mayhem.

Edit: yeah, the eighth day schedule for the bris is laid out in Genesis and Leviticus. In the former, so is circumcizing your slaves. And the text makes it sound like adult slaves too. Man, the ancient Levant sucked. But the brit milah may be postponed for good cause; is there a legalistic argument there?

Then again, getting back to the Trekkian silliness, they let Vulcan parents put their kids through the logic agoge, and circumcision probably doesn't even apply to 90% of the dongs and dong equivalents in the Federation, so who knows? It could be an Earth law, however, much as any circumcision bans in the near future in America would be local initiatives (such as the proposed initiative in San Francisco--go Starfleet). (Great idea, but largely symbolic of course: how ridiculously ineffective would a citywide ban be for a one-time medical procedure?)

Fun wrinkle: if you're Moses and born circucumcized, should your parents be able to refuse to reconstruct the foreskin?

 

[Maxillius]

Ignoring all the religious crap and nationalism rhetoric, I would freely join a Federation that put the money b.s. behind it. There is no good reason a society that can travel between stars and govern worlds effectively should need to force its people to *buy* the things they need to survive or *pay for* needed medical treatment. On that note, an education should be a right as well, and if you choose to go to less school than is available, then it's because you're not as bright as the others that go or you've simply made that choice.

Note that Jake Sisko only went to school for a few months in the time he was school age on DS9.

 

[T'Girl]

[

Note that Jake Sisko only went to school for a few months in the time he was school age on DS9.

I seem to recall Jake obviously studying in the Sisko's apartment/quarters on more than one occasion. He might not have been spending much time in a formal classroom, but he was obtaining a education.

Ignoring all the religious crap and nationalism rhetoric,

The Federation doesn't appear to have much in the way of nationalism or patriotism. I don't see the characters on the various series as self identifying as primarily Federation citizens. Troi is Betazed, Riker's from Alaska, Sisko from New Orleans, McCoy is southern, Dax is Trill, Spock isn't just from Vulcan. He is Vulcan. If pushed all of them would declare "Oh, well I'm a Federation citizen too." But it isn't how they primarily identify themselves. The only time Kirk says I'm from the Federation or we're from the Federation is in a official capacity, and not always then. In a social conversation Kirk will state he is from Iowa.

The sole exception is Picard, who does come off as a overt Federation citizen, and even he occasionally self-identifies as a Frenchman.

I would freely join a Federation that put the money b.s. behind it.

Then likely you won't join, outside of the three or four verbal references to "no money," there is money.

Especially given the ridiculously powerful medical techniques the Fed possesses, there would be absolutely no practical reason to permit parents to circumcise their children

There is the question of when the Federation's medicine reached the "ridiculous" level, there are no real reason not to circumcise males, while unusual in my own family, most males I've ask on the subject apparently are. And there are medical and cultural/societal reasons to have it done, not just religious ones. It hard to come up with a reason the state would get involved.

You don't get to criticise a good - theoretical - system B just because system A works better at the moment ...

Of course I can extend criticism, first I'm a citizen, second I've been expose to the systems in question. The military dependent education system and the civilian public education system are both basically government schools, yet one is excellent and the other isn't. Private and public schools get different results because they operate with different standards. You would at least think that the American school would be superior to the shoe string budgeted Brazilian school, but even there the academics were higher in the little Brazilian school.

And it isn't simply a matter of money, one of the worst school systems in America (violence, drop outs and academics) is the Washington DC system, which receives the same money per student as many private school tuitions.

 

[Avechbobo]

There is the question of when the Federation's medicine reached the "ridiculous" level, there are no real reason not to circumcise males...

How do you need a reason not to perform surgery? Altered is not the default.

... And there are medical and cultural/societal reasons to have it done, not just religious ones. It hard to come up with a reason the state would get involved.

There has been a discussion about this in another thread. Basically, the medical reasons are ridiculous, don't apply in childhood anyway, not circumcising doesn't lead to death or anything (like not vaccinating might). Religious/cultural reasons should not be a justification if you do have arguments against it, which in this case are the protection of the child's bodily integrity. Why should the state get involved? I don't know, maybe because your parents might want to cut off parts of your penis and you have to live with it forever, much like assault or abuse is forbidden...just a thought.

 

[Sci]

Why should the state get involved? I don't know, maybe because your parents might want to cut off parts of your penis and you have to live with it forever, much like assault or abuse is forbidden...just a thought.

I was circumcised as an infant. It does not bother me. I've never felt bad about it or traumatized. And, in point of fact, I would not have even known I was circumcised if I hadn't been told.

I have a hard time justifying the idea that something that does not cause trauma to a child should be outlawed. Should we also ban giving a little girl an earring because it involves cutting into the ear?

 

[Avechbobo]

Why should the state get involved? I don't know, maybe because your parents might want to cut off parts of your penis and you have to live with it forever, much like assault or abuse is forbidden...just a thought.

I was circumcised as an infant. It does not bother me. I've never felt bad about it or traumatized. And, in point of fact, I would not have even known I was circumcised if I hadn't been told.

I have a hard time justifying the idea that something that does not cause trauma to a child should be outlawed. Should we also ban giving a little girl an earring because it involves cutting into the ear?

1. It doesn't matter whether you were "traumatized" or anything. The fact that people perform unnecessary surgery on you is enough to disapprove of that.

2. Actually, yes we should. You can't tattoo a child, or you wouldn't, right? See, and that's not even the same. Rather than cutting something off, you're just injecting it with paint...well, I would care. The same goes for earrings: I would not let a child get them, not until it's at least in puberty and can think a little further. Children see what other children look like and can this way be influenced subconsciously.

 

[Sci]

Why should the state get involved? I don't know, maybe because your parents might want to cut off parts of your penis and you have to live with it forever, much like assault or abuse is forbidden...just a thought.

I was circumcised as an infant. It does not bother me. I've never felt bad about it or traumatized. And, in point of fact, I would not have even known I was circumcised if I hadn't been told.

I have a hard time justifying the idea that something that does not cause trauma to a child should be outlawed. Should we also ban giving a little girl an earring because it involves cutting into the ear?

1. It doesn't matter whether you were "traumatized" or anything. The fact that people perform unnecessary surgery on you is enough to disapprove of that.

And yet I don't disapprove of that. And it's actually my body we're talking about, so surely my opinion on the matter is more binding than yours. And my opinion is, no, it's not enough to disapprove of it.

2. Actually, yes we should. You can't tattoo a child, or you wouldn't, right? See, and that's not even the same. Rather than cutting something off, you're just injecting it with paint...well, I would care. The same goes for earrings: I would not let a child get them, not until it's at least in puberty and can think a little further. Children see what other children look like and can this way be influenced subconsciously.

Lovely for your own children, but who are you to tell someone else how to raise their children?

 

[Avechbobo]

@Sci
1. Who am I? It's simple: Most people share the view that children should be protected from abuse and should receive a good education. We have laws against oh-so-many things. In my view, it just goes that one bit further. That's all.

2.

And yet I don't disapprove of that. And it's actually my body we're talking about, so surely my opinion on the matter is more binding than yours. And my opinion is, no, it's not enough to disapprove of it.

Excuse me, we're talking about what a law should be like. Some people like violent sex. We don't make anybody who doesn't like it do so. The same way we protect people from unwanted sex, as in sexual assault, abuse or rape, the same way we should protect children against unwanted surgery. Justifying it later on is ad absurdum. It's like you ask an abused child if it thinks abuse should be illegal.

 

[Sci]

@Sci
1. Who am I? It's simple: Most people share the view that children should be protected from abuse

Yes, but in order for something to be abusive, it has to actually cause harm.

And yet I don't disapprove of that. And it's actually my body we're talking about, so surely my opinion on the matter is more binding than yours. And my opinion is, no, it's not enough to disapprove of it.

Excuse me, we're talking about what should a law be like. Some people like violent sex. We don't make anybody who doesn't like it do so. The same way we protect people from unwanted sex, as in sexual assault, abuse or rape, the same way we should protect children against unwanted surgery.

Any surgery for a child is unwanted. Hell, when I was a child, medicine was unwanted. The rule should not be "unwanted," the rule should be, "Does it cause harm or trauma?"

Circumcision causes neither. It is, in point of fact, a bodily modification that's virtually meaningless.

 

[Avechbobo]

@Sci
I think I've at least once been there in the other thread, but oh well: Why is it so hard to understand: Unnecessary surgery should be forbidden, what I meant with unwanted was not in the interest of the child (it cannot possibly be), cicumcision is unnecessary surgery, therefore, circumcision should be forbidden. Argh.

That's all that is to it. You cannot assume it doesn't do any harm. It's surgery. The mere fact that it's surgery is a risk. Local anaesthesia is a risk. Cutting around on genitals with a knife is a risk. Pain is a risk. Hell, parents being concerned about performing surgery on a child's penis is very questionable.

It's all very simple. You can of course throw some moral principles over board and try to justify anything. I'm against that and that's it.

 

[T'Girl]

Basically, the medical reasons are ridiculous ...

The World Health Organization in 2007, the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS also in 2007, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2008, all concluded that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during unprotected heterosexual sex.

The American Academy of Pediatrics studies find that circumcised males experience fewer sexual dysfunctions as adult men. Different studies found that circumcision was associated with lower rates of syphilis, chancroid and genital herpes. There is also a clear, if slight, reduction in penile cancer. Ongoing medical studies also seems to indicate that circumcision reduces infection of males with human papillomavirus.

Fluids "very briefly trapped" by the foreskin apparently assists in transmission.

Religious/cultural reasons should not be a justification if you do have arguments against it

Because we as a people should have neither religion or apparently culture?

 

[JarodRussell]

Circumcision causes neither. It is, in point of fact, a bodily modification that's virtually meaningless.

If it's meaningless, why do it? Especially why do it in a time when the child can't decide for itself? That's abuse, already a mild form of rape, as you harm the child physically without its consent.

 

[Avechbobo]

all concluded that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during unprotected heterosexual sex.

The American Academy of Pediatrics studies find that circumcised males experience fewer sexual dysfunctions as adult men. Different studies found that circumcision was associated with lower rates of syphilis, chancroid and genital herpes

That must be the solution, then. Screw the condoms, get the surgeons over here!

See, lower rates of infection in sexually active people don't justify circumcision on children.

There is also a clear, if slight, reduction in penile cancer.

Which is a very, very widespread disease.

Fluids "very briefly trapped" by the foreskin apparently assists in transmission.

The foreskin acts as a natural lubricant and as a protective skin to the glans.

Because we as a people should have neither religion or apparently culture?

No, but because in my opinion, culture and religion are not justification enough for surgery on children, stupidification of children, brainwashing of children and abuse of children.

And also, because parental supervision lasts for 18 years max. while the current life expectancy is about 75 years. Which means you will undoubtedly have to live with however your parents treated you or your genitals for about 60 years after your parents have any say on what culture you actually want to be part of.

 

[JarodRussell]

I find it funny how most of the discussions here eventually revolve around dicks.

 

[Avechbobo]

It's definitely my fault, but I just can't stand people defending things like this.

 

[T'Girl]

discussions here eventually revolve around dicks

With posts written by same.

Screw the condoms

AIDS is rapid in Africa and other parts of the world where condom use is infrequent. The incident of AIDS is lower among Muslims in Africa because circumcision is so common in Islam..

See, lower rates of infection in sexually active people don't justify circumcision on children.

And how many people become sexual active prior to becoming an adult?

[penile cancer] Which is a very, very widespread disease

About three thousand new cases per year in America.

The foreskin acts [snip] as a protective skin to the glans.

From STD's? No.

 

[AstroSmurf]

discussions here eventually revolve around dicks

With posts written by same.

This is not appropriate and I would suggest you dial it back T'Girl. Consider this a friendly. The next time you take veiled pot-shots at other posters you will earn an infraction.

 

[KJbushway]

T'Girl wrote:
There is the question of when the Federation's medicine reached the "ridiculous" level, there are no real reason not to circumcise males...

Trust me there is no reason(s) beyond the fact that girls don't like the way it looks. Medically if you pratice safe sex and your not a man whore, not doing it is actaully healthy. There is a reason why it is naturally there. The only reasons it is cut off is becuase religion, and parent's automatically do it, and becuase when there is no extra skin the part looks better to woman. From what I have heard it hurts like hell if its done when your an adult(Morning comes, you break the stiches). My parents didn't do it becuase my mother was fundamentally against how they did it(holding down the baby and cutting it off) and the doctors said it was healthier.

 

[Myasishchev]

^And let's not forget the dismal case of David Reimer, whose circumcision became a forced sexual reassignment surgery. And ultimately suicide.

(My understanding is that this was tremendously likely even then, but why expose children to any such risk?)

Why should the state get involved? I don't know, maybe because your parents might want to cut off parts of your penis and you have to live with it forever, much like assault or abuse is forbidden...just a thought.

I was circumcised as an infant. It does not bother me.

Perhaps, but you're a sample size of one. It evidently does bother quite a few people, who were not given a choice and subjected to an effectively irreversible modification.

And the earring analogies are a bit false--many adults submit to piercings of many types, especially the (supposedly) innocuous ear piercings.

How many adults do you know who have submitted to circumcision? (Abraham doesn't count.)

And to make things more fair, assume away the potential complications adult circumcision entail. I still doubt it would be very popular.

In any event, not knowing that you were circumcised doesn't really mean anything--if you were born without a sense of smell and no one ever mentioned the concept to you, I doubt you'd know that either, but it doesn't mean that isn't a substantial loss.

There is the question of when the Federation's medicine reached the "ridiculous" level

True.

It occurred to me however that ridiculous-level technology would be just as capable of replacing a lost foreskin, on demand, as it would be painlessly removing that of an adolescent or adult--thus potentially avoiding the issue.