For left-wing readers: Imagine a fascist theocracy takes power in America. They ban unnecessary hospital birth interventions (because it is not as God intended), all forms of child-abuse (because of Matthew 18:6), and genital cutting (because it is Muslim and Jewish). Do you support them?
For right-wing readers: Imagine a Marxist revolution takes power in America. They ban unnecessary hospital birth interventions (because it is for-profit healthcare), all forms of child-abuse (because it creates age-based inequality), and genital cutting (because Stalin banned circumcision). Do you support them?
Would it be serious to support a new Hitler or a new Stalin on the grounds that circumcision will be banned thanks to them, without taking into account all the suffering they will cause and that we will de facto support by the same gesture? The remedy worse than the evil?
I don't align closely with either side and I often feel somewhat apolitical. I'm not sure how to decide whether I would "support" an extremist government that assumedly could accomplish those goals. Ideologues and extreme ideologies are not necessarily something I can support even if they do some good... If it were a question of it being the only way to achieve these specific goals, then I suppose it would be a simpler choice to support. I think that outcomes are not the only thing that matters, since principles and ideologies tend to determine outcomes. Propping up crooked ideologies will always lead to some harm in the long run.
On the other hand, if this situation really arose, I might be uneasy and disapproving on principle, but my relief at these pieces of progress would probably create a bias and earn some amount of my loyalty. I cannot clearly separate my emotional concern on these issues from my principles.
And if your not a right or left wing reader? What then? As a birth worker I support autonomy. Period. I suppose as someone “in the middle” I’ve supported both “enemies” in their causes if they support genital autonomy and birth autonomy.
Surely there is a better left wing argument for banning circumcision than just because Stalin did it? I believe Stalin did it in an attempt to eradicate all religion in the USSR. Other than that I would support that government.
Well, since I don't buy into the L-R paradigm and consider myself a conscientious objector with respect to politics, I wasnt sure how to answer. It's a loaded question since it assumes I would 'support' ANY government.
Circumcision, like spouse-beating, should clearly be a non-partisan issue. But I am not adding anything to the conversation by saying that.
Would it be serious to support a new Hitler or a new Stalin on the grounds that circumcision will be banned thanks to them, without taking into account all the suffering they will cause and that we will de facto support by the same gesture? The remedy worse than the evil?
I don't align closely with either side and I often feel somewhat apolitical. I'm not sure how to decide whether I would "support" an extremist government that assumedly could accomplish those goals. Ideologues and extreme ideologies are not necessarily something I can support even if they do some good... If it were a question of it being the only way to achieve these specific goals, then I suppose it would be a simpler choice to support. I think that outcomes are not the only thing that matters, since principles and ideologies tend to determine outcomes. Propping up crooked ideologies will always lead to some harm in the long run.
On the other hand, if this situation really arose, I might be uneasy and disapproving on principle, but my relief at these pieces of progress would probably create a bias and earn some amount of my loyalty. I cannot clearly separate my emotional concern on these issues from my principles.
I have a lot of trouble with hypotheticals.
And if your not a right or left wing reader? What then? As a birth worker I support autonomy. Period. I suppose as someone “in the middle” I’ve supported both “enemies” in their causes if they support genital autonomy and birth autonomy.
Surely there is a better left wing argument for banning circumcision than just because Stalin did it? I believe Stalin did it in an attempt to eradicate all religion in the USSR. Other than that I would support that government.
Also do not subscribe to the political binary, but would support any government whose net results I believe to be good
I’m a libertarian, and I would oppose. Every gov’t / admin / evildoer does some good things.
Well, since I don't buy into the L-R paradigm and consider myself a conscientious objector with respect to politics, I wasnt sure how to answer. It's a loaded question since it assumes I would 'support' ANY government.
Circumcision, like spouse-beating, should clearly be a non-partisan issue. But I am not adding anything to the conversation by saying that.