Looks like circumcision could be banned.

[quisquose]

Why must I ?

 

Logic dictates that you must.

 

If you defend the removal of the prepuce of baby boys, then you cannot logically criticise the removal of the prepuce of baby girls.

 

One is about control, domination and deliberate mutilation and the other isn't.

 

If you insist on comparing surgical male genital cutting in the west with tribal female cutting, then of course female cutting comes off worse.

 

However, scores of boys die every year from tribal male cutting in one province of South Africa alone (and many more lose their entire penis). What could be worse than that?

 

Then we have female cutting in parts of Indonesia and Malaysia that is surgical and entirely comparable to surgical male cutting. In 2010 the AAP’s “bioethics” committee proposed to allow a token ritual cut to girls stating that it was "much less extensive than neonatal male genital cutting" (their words) but they were howled down within a month.

 

FGM might carry more risks than MGM due to the biology, but it is the principle as human rights violations that they are equivalent. Both are wrong.

Edited June 18, 2012 by quisquose

[Teddybare]

Logic dictates that you must.

 

If you defend the removal of the prepuce of baby boys, then you cannot logically criticise the removal of the prepuce of baby girls.

 

 

 

If you insist on comparing surgical male genital cutting in the west with tribal female cutting, then of course female cutting comes off worse.

 

However, scores of boys die every year from tribal male cutting in one province of South Africa alone (and many more lose their entire penis). What could be worse than that?

 

Then we have female cutting of Indonesia and Malaysia is surgical and entirely comparable to surgical male cutting. In 2010 the AAP’s “bioethics” committee proposed to allow a token ritual cut to girls stating that it was "much less extensive than neonatal male genital cutting" (their words) but they were howled down within a month.

 

FGM might carry more risks than MGM due to the biology, but it is the principle as human rights violations that they are equivalent. Both are wrong.

 

This thread is about circumcision practices on infant boys in Europe. Try harder.

[JFKvsNixon]

To mutilate is to disable, disfigure or maul, male circumcision does nothing of the sort, the removal foreskin doesn’t disfigure or disable the penis only reveal more of the shaft and some people are born without foreskin.

 

 

 

Nonsense. That is like saying you should not pierce your child's ear- as when it grows up, he/she will question why their ear was pierced.

 

The are many benefits of circumcision that those who do it are happy with the pros- I have not seen one negative aspect nor have I seen anyone complain about being circumcised.

 

I had my son circumcised by a Jewish doctor- my son has never moaned or even raised the subject when he could have.

 

This is just another typical atheist rant. People who do this for whatever reasons will continue- not stop because a few dislike it.

 

Unless there is some harmful outcome or there are implications to it, (none which I have ever read of or heard of) there is no issue to it.

 

Get over it...and move on.

 

Would you be tolerant of me if I had a young child tattooed?

 

I've never said that there isn't a benefit to circumcision, so when the child is old enough they can decide for themselves if they want to be circumcised or not.

 

What is the problem with this approach?

[f0rd]

So you believe it's a human right to be able to mutilate the genitals of boys? [/QUote]

 

Sure if that "mutilation" is an establish tenant of their religion then yes. Like it or not this is moral relativism at it's best, what you view as barbaric and mutilation, Jews and Muslims see the practice as essential and normal.

 

Parental consent only happens when what is consented too is in the child's best interest.[/Quote]

 

No it doesn't, parents consent to many things that are not in their child best interests, parents consent to feeding their kids crap all the time, there is a reason why childhood obesity is rising in the UK. Does the child have a choice really? No.

 

If you took a child and asked for an operation that was not medically indicated they would refuse to do it, irrespective of whether you thought it was in the child's interest or not.[/Quote]

 

Er... Religious Circumcision ≠ Rocking up to an hospital and asking for an operation for your child.

 

If you refused essential medical treatment, the child would be removed from your care. So why is this any different?[/Quote]

 

er... because it's not a medical operation, it's an essential cultural custom.

 

When the child is old enough to consent for medical treatment, then they are old enough to decide if they want to be circumcised.

 

Put the crucial bit on bold for you.

 

Jewish and Muslim parents have a right to practice their religion, that includes the right to arrange for the circumcision of their sons in accordance with the tenets of each respective religion. If you want to impose any limitation on their free practice of religion - find it in law. Otherwise it comes back to the first point I made:

 

"Like it or not this is moral relativism at it's best, what you view as barbaric and mutilation, Jews and Muslims see the practice as essential and normal."

[JFKvsNixon]

Sure if that "mutilation" is an establish tenant of their religion then yes. Like it or not this is moral relativism at it's best, what you view as barbaric and mutilation, Jews and Muslims see the practice as essential and normal.

 

 

 

No it doesn't, parents consent to many things that are not in their child best interests, parents consent to feeding their kids crap all the time, there is a reason why childhood obesity is rising in the UK. Does the child have a choice really? No.

 

 

 

Er... Religious Circumcision ≠ Rocking up to an hospital and asking for an operation for your child.

 

 

 

er... because it's not a medical operation, it's an essential cultural custom.

 

 

 

Put the crucial bit on bold for you.

 

Jewish and Muslim parents have a right to practice their religion, that includes the right to arrange for the circumcision of their sons in accordance with the tenets of each respective religion. If you want to impose any limitation on their free practice of religion - find it in law. Otherwise it comes back to the first point I made:

 

"Like it or not this is moral relativism at it's best, what you view as barbaric and mutilation, Jews and Muslims see the practice as essential and normal."

 

I think my comparison is valid.

 

If a circumcision is performed in an operating theatre or in a clinic it is viewed as a medical procedure governed by a strict set of rules and ethics, why does it change if the exact same procedure is carried out away from medical setting, does the individual only have these specific rights whilst they are in the medical setting?

 

I strongly agree that people should be able to follow their faith and beliefs, and as I asked another poster. What's wrong with waiting for the child is old enough to be able to consent for medical treatment then they can decide for themselves if they want to be circumcised or not?

 

This is the best of both worlds, if the child wants to be circumcised then they can be, if they don't then they are not; in essence the child will be free to follow their own faith and beliefs.

[Phanerothyme]

If you defend circumcision of male babies, then you cannot logically argue that circumcision of female babies is wrong

 

Is the objection to ritual, genitals and/or ablation? What are the degrees of each and what are their harms?

 

But you cannot assert that it is somehow invalid logic to defend male baby circumcision and condemn femail baby circumcision without showing how both are within a meaningful set.

[Bloomdido]

Give it another hundred years. It was deemed acceptable to castrate choir boys in to the 1900s. Better to have Castrati than women being heard in church.

[f0rd]

I think my comparison is valid.

 

If a circumcision is performed in an operating theatre or in a clinic it is viewed as a medical procedure governed by a strict set of rules and ethics, why does it change if the exact same procedure is carried out away from medical setting, does the individual only have these specific rights whilst they are in the medical setting?[/Quote]

 

You mean these strict set of rules and ethics?

 

The law and ethics of male circumcision: guidance for doctors.

 

I strongly agree that people should be able to follow their faith and beliefs, and as I asked another poster. What's wrong with waiting for the child is old enough to be able to consent for medical treatment then they can decide for themselves if they want to be circumcised or not?

 

I can't speak for Islam, but in Judaism God said it has to be done on the 8 day, that doesn't allow for a child reach the point of consent or decision. Regardless of my personal view, that is what Judaism states, and enforcing waiting till a child reaches that point where they can decide would be stopping the parents practicing their religion.

 

This is the best of both worlds, if the child wants to be circumcised then they can be, if they don't then they are not; in essence the child will be free to follow their own faith and beliefs.

But for the reason above, the parents wouldn't.

[quisquose]

This thread is about circumcision practices on infant boys in Europe. Try harder.

 

The OP asks if anybody condones the routine circumcision of infant boys. You have condoned it and tried to defend your position by arguing a difference between male cutting and female cutting, which was banned by the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003.

 

My response was relevant to your arguments, feel free to respond because I will assume the "try harder" remark is avoidance.

 

There is a surgical device that can shield the clitoris of a girl, and ensure a circumcision of the prepuce of the clitoris just as safely as the removal of the prepuce of a boy's penis. Would you care to explain why you only condemn the former?

[JFKvsNixon]

You mean these strict set of rules and ethics?

 

The law and ethics of male circumcision: guidance for doctors.

 

 

 

I can't speak for Islam, but in Judaism God said it has to be done on the 8 day, that doesn't allow for a child reach the point of consent or decision. Regardless of my personal view, that is what Judaism states, and enforcing waiting till a child reaches that point where they can decide would be stopping the parents practicing their religion.

 

 

But for the reason above, the parents wouldn't.

 

Nice link, thanks.

 

Their approach to non therapeutic circumcision is interesting:

 

The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proved except to the extent that there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly.

 

They continue do defend the practitioners that carry it out by stating:

 

It is currently generally accepted that non-therapeutic circumcision is lawful. “Even when violence is intentionally afflicted and results in actual bodily harm, wounding or serious bodily harm the accused is entitled to be acquitted if the injury was a foreseeable incident of a lawful activity in which the person injured was participating. Surgery involves intentional violence resulting in actual or sometimes serious bodily harm but surgery is a lawful activity. Other activities carried on with consent by or on behalf of the injured person have been accepted as lawful notwithstanding that they involve actual bodily harm or may cause serious bodily harm. Ritual circumcision, tattooing, ear-piercing and violent sports including boxing are lawful activities

 

They carry on by discussing how the Human Rights Act (2000) may be used to challenge the right to carry out non therapeutic circumcision.

 

• 
  Article 3: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
   
  
• Article 5: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of the person.”
   
  
• Article 8: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life” except for the “protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
   
  
• Article 9: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”
   
  
• Article 9: “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
  

 

They suggest that a challange un the Human Rights Act might even be successful:

 

If it was shown that circumcision where there is no clinical need is prejudicial to a child’s health and wellbeing, it is likely that a legal challenge on human rights grounds would be successful.

 

They conclude this part of the discussion by suggesting that the practitioners should seek their own legal advice on the subject because the issue has yet to be tested in our courts since the passing of the Human Rights Act.

 

There has been no reported legal case involving circumcision since the Act came into force. If doctors are in any doubt about the legality of their actions, they should seek legal advice.

 

Their over all conclusions are:

 

• Doctors must act in the best interests of the patient.
   
  
• Even where they do not decide for themselves, the views that children express are important in determining what is in their best interests.
   
  
• The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view. Parental preference must be weighed in terms of the child’s interests.
   
  
• The courts have confirmed that the child’s lifestyle and likely upbringing are relevant factors to take into account. The particular situation of the case needs to be considered.
   
  
• Parents must explain and justify requests for circumcision, in terms of the child’s interests.
  

 

It's an interesting debate that is currently up in the air, it will be interesting to see what will happen if it s challenged in court.

 

I'm not arrogant enough to believe that everything I disagree with should be banned, but I will argue all day and night against someone who believes that it is their human right to have a non therapeutic circumcision carried out on their child.