Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Harrowby Hall on June 03, 2017, 07:37:42 AM
-
An old subject revisited.
A story from my native city:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-39976018
My understanding of this is that the little boy was taken to the GP by his grandmother who requested the circumcision. His mother did not want it done. The police are dithering (presumably not wanting to offend an ethnic/religious community). Both the GP and the grandmother should be prosecuted.
The law and ethics of male circumcision: BMA guidelines
Both parents should normally give consent for "non-therapeutic" or "ritual" circumcision, i.e. when the procedure is not carried out for medical reasons
When parents disagree about whether a child should be circumcised, doctors should not circumcise without the leave of a court
Doctors must make accurate, contemporaneous notes of discussions, consent, the procedure and its aftercare
The medical harms or benefits of circumcision have not been unequivocally proven but there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly
All children who are capable of expressing a view should be involved in decisions about whether they should be circumcised, and their wishes taken into account
Source: British Medical Association
-
Circumcision should be illegal.
-
Circumcision should be illegal.
Unless for genuine medical reasons.
-
Slicing bits off of little boys so as to comply with ancient religious dogma is both fallacious (by being justified by arguments from tradition and authority) and reprehensible conduct: perhaps it is time to treat this barbarism as assault.
-
Unless for genuine medical reasons.
Agreed.
-
Circumcision should only be doing for genuine medical reasons. Doing for religious reasons is abuse, unless it is done on a fully consenting adult male. I don't know about nowadays but at one time the foreskin was taken off without pain relief in the Jewish ritual, which is TERRIBLE, poor baby boy! What sort of sick perverted god would demand that of its acolytes? >:(
-
Exactly what everybody else has said so far +1
-
My in-laws had my husband and his brother done as babies, even though they weren't Jewish but pain in the neck Christian Biblical literalists. They thought god would approve! :o
-
Circumcision should only be doing for genuine medical reasons. Doing for religious reasons is abuse, unless it is done on a fully consenting adult male. I don't know about nowadays but at one time the foreskin was taken off without pain relief in the Jewish ritual, which is TERRIBLE, poor baby boy! What sort of sick perverted god would demand that of its acolytes? >:(
It hasn't only been for religious reasons.
It is not so long ago that circumcision was a routine "service" offered by midwives following home births. Childbirth mainly took place at home and was attended only by a midwife. circumcision was performed on baby boys two or three days old. Most of the boys that I was at school with did not have foreskins (myself included).
It was a habit which had crossed the Atlantic - being American, it was a practice which simple English women clearly thought was somehow beneficial. Little did they know that it was the originator of their breakfast cereal who encouraged circumcision (for exactly the same reason that he had invented corn flakes - he wanted to suppress the evil activity of sexual intercourse).
In the 1940s and 1950s circumcision was a female conspiracy practised by women on their sons. It is hard to imagine the thought processes involved in giving birth to a beautiful baby boy and then, awash with love, mutilating him without even the benefit of pain relief.
-
Good article here:
http://tinyurl.com/y7lu3r43
with a particularly pertinent comment from the judge:
"First and foremost, this is a once and for all, irreversible procedure. There is no guarantee that these boys will wish to continue to observe the Muslim faith with the devotion demonstrated by their father although that may very well be their choice.
"They are still very young and there is no way of anticipating at this stage how the different influences in their respective parental homes will shape and guide their development over the coming years."
-
Exactly what everybody else has said so far +1
+2
-
Meanwhile back in eastern and southern Africa the WHO sponsored program to achieve widespread adult male circumcision continues apace. By end 2013 over six million adult males had been circumcised and in 2015 alone nearly 12 million were carried out. To the best of my knowledge the initial WHO target of 20 million circumcisions by end 2016 has been comfortably exceeded.
-
It hasn't only been for religious reasons.
It is not so long ago that circumcision was a routine "service" offered by midwives following home births. Childbirth mainly took place at home and was attended only by a midwife. circumcision was performed on baby boys two or three days old. Most of the boys that I was at school with did not have foreskins (myself included).
Pity they never took a leaf out of Abrahams book and did it on the eighth day. If you are going to do infant circumcision day eight is the best time to do it from a medical viewpoint.
-
Pity they never took a leaf out of Abrahams book and did it on the eighth day. If you are going to do infant circumcision day eight is the best time to do it from a medical viewpoint.
Abraham is not a person to emulate that is for sure!
-
Meanwhile back in eastern and southern Africa the WHO sponsored program to achieve widespread adult male circumcision continues apace. By end 2013 over six million adult males had been circumcised and in 2015 alone nearly 12 million were carried out. To the best of my knowledge the initial WHO target of 20 million circumcisions by end 2016 has been comfortably exceeded.
... which has sweet FA to do with surgery foisted upon a subject without their informed consent, as is the case with ritual mutilation of infants - the topic of this thread.
-
Pity they never took a leaf out of Abrahams book and did it on the eighth day. If you are going to do infant circumcision [...]
...you should be arrested.
-
...you should be arrested.
Arrested for stating a simple medical fact? Wow, what sort of laws do you have in your country?
-
Arrested for stating a simple medical fact?
Do try and keep up. You said: "If you are going to do infant circumcision ..." to which I appended: "... you should be arrested."
Wow, what sort of laws do you have in your country?
Unfortunately not ones that ban this grotesque barbarism.
-
Do try and keep up. You said: "If you are going to do infant circumcision ..." to which I appended: "... you should be arrested."
Unfortunately not ones that ban this grotesque barbarism.
If such a law did exist even a third rate lawyer would have no difficulty in getting such a charge against me thrown out of court.
-
If such a law did exist even a third rate lawyer would have no difficulty in getting such a charge against me thrown out of court.
Guess not!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_law
-
Pity they never took a leaf out of Abrahams book and did it on the eighth day. If you are going to do infant circumcision day eight is the best time to do it from a medical viewpoint.
Really? It seems doctors rarely carry out circumcisions for medical reasons until the age of 5, at least. In Scotland the recommendation is to wait until at least 6 to 9 months. I hope your idea of following the Abrahamic suggestion of eight days wouldn't be accompanied by the seemingly barbaric procedures of that time period, although, of course, such circumcisions weren't really carried out for medical reasons, were they, but specifically carried out as mutilation procedures associated with religious ideas and rituals? The same thing still happens today in certain cultures and religions, of course.
-
An old subject revisited.
The police are dithering (presumably not wanting to offend an ethnic/religious community).
And the problem is...??????
-
Meanwhile back in eastern and southern Africa the WHO sponsored program to achieve widespread adult male circumcision continues apace. By end 2013 over six million adult males had been circumcised and in 2015 alone nearly 12 million were carried out. To the best of my knowledge the initial WHO target of 20 million circumcisions by end 2016 has been comfortably exceeded.
I have no more objection to adults electing to be circumcised than I do to them having piercings or tattoos. The problem comes when doing it to people who are unable to consent.
-
I have no more objection to adults electing to be circumcised than I do to them having piercings or tattoos. The problem comes when doing it to people who are unable to consent.
Agreed, especially as it can cause problems if the circumcision is messed up.
-
Circumcision should be illegal.
Then men would suffer if such a thing happened.
For medical reasons sometimes the procedure must be carried out.
-
Then men would suffer if such a thing happened.
For medical reasons sometimes the procedure must be carried out.
We're not referring to therapeutic (i.e. medically necessary) circumcision but ritual circumcision carried for no other reason than the religious beliefs of the parents, not the subject of the surgery.
-
I've read all of this thread so far and remember(with horror) what you said on previous thread about rabbis sucking the wound with potential for infection. I'd no idea about that before you posted and thought it was disgusting, is it a regular thing? I'd think not.
What HH said about the cornflake man & has repeated on this thread was also an eye opener especially when I googled Mr Kellogg and found out his motives.
Whilst i am an will always be sensitive to other cultures I've come round to thinking that circumcision, other than for medical reasons (one of my lovely nephews was 'done' as a small child for a problem,no ill effects),should only be undertaken when a person is old enough to understand and agree. Then should be done by qualified medic with experience and no history of mistakes, in surgical surroundings.
(Personal experience' A friend of mine who is Muslim had a nephew who had the procedure when he was thirteen, again with no bad effects, the point being he understood and agreed with no pressure (never thought to ask her about her son!!! He's now 29 & just got marriedto the love of his life, also Muslim,whom he met at uni. Presumably he is Ok i'm not gonna ask now.
Thinking about it my husband is circumcised, he's just 59. When we first got together I asked him if he knew why and he said he had no idea & had never thought to ask! It happened before he could remember. Obviously no ill effects, he's always been fine (as was boyrfiend i had before him :-[ )
Let's hope the law takes this seriously as well as being sensitive to traditional beliefs. It will take time to completely eradicate the practice of circumcising babies.
-
Then men would suffer if such a thing happened.
For medical reasons sometimes the procedure must be carried out.
It should only be allowed if medically necessary, otherwise the supposed benefits are a myth.
-
Wow a subject on which we are all agreed, with one exception, that is rarity.
I have heard before of Rabbis sucking the circumcision site in an attempt to prevent infection, hmmmmmmmmmmm! :o
-
Despite a number of posts which seem to have elected to deliberately misrepresents my views, I am not in favour of circumcision unless there are compelling medical reasons to do so. But I live in a country with a significant number of adherents to Judaism and Islam and have no wish to get involved in any crusade to interfere with their practices and beliefs. There are more important issues to be concerned with in this country than to engage in actions whose main outcome will be to aggravate racial, ethnic or cultural divisions.
Having said that I do often wish that many of you who live in the nice comfortable, molly-coddled cocoons of a western first world environment could be occasionally thrown into the deep end of the realities in the third world. In this country you would soon find that the circumcision of male infants, for whatever reason, was an issue of minor consequence compared to the stark realities of some of the consequences of (voluntary) adult male circumcision. Many African tribes practice male circumcision at the age of 15 or 16 as a ritual associated with the transition from childhood to adulthood.
Many of these young men, particularly from the more traditional groups, are required to attend bush ‘initiation’ schools were the circumcision is done and where they have to stay until healed. Needless to say the procedure is often carried out by individuals with little or no medical knowledge, mostly with non-sterile instruments and under unhygienic conditions. And the results are traumatic. Every year scores of young men end up requiring emergency medical treatment because of serious infections. The lucky ones get there in time and can be successfully treated. But too often gangrene has set in and in too many cases surgeons are faced with no option but to conduct penile amputations in order to prevent death. One of the major teaching hospitals near here has in fact pioneered and successfully carried out a number of penile transplants in an attempt to allow a normal future sexual life for such individuals.
So if you want an issue to get justifiably angry about, circumcision of infants pales into insignificance compared to this.
-
People are being stabbed and run over and you are all worrying about cutting off a flap of skin?
-
People are being stabbed and run over and you are all worrying about cutting off a flap of skin?
1. The thread was started yesterday morning, hours before the London attacks.
2. Most of us seem to find ourselves sufficiently well-rounded to be capable of being concerned with and able to discuss more than one issue at a time.
3. Referring to such a blatant abuse of the right to bodily integrity as "cutting off a flap of skin" is trite, shallow and mindlessly facile.
-
People are being stabbed and run over and you are all worrying about cutting off a flap of skin?
Cutting off a flap of skin on a young child is abuse if it is not done for purely medical reasons, so should be discussed. Besides which, as Shaker points out, the topic was started before the atrocity in London.
-
People are being stabbed and run over and you are all worrying about cutting off a flap of skin?
People are being stabbed and run over and yet here you are, chastising people about them worrying about cutting off a flap of skin?
-
I understand what Rose is on about & its a bit harsh to chastise her for prioritising matters. She has a point.
We've discussed circumcision to death but let's face it the Jews have been doing it for centuries and how many Jewish men do you know who've had problems because of it.
I've stated I'm against it unless there is a medical reason but there are other far more important issues.
-
I understand what Rose is on about & its a bit harsh to chastise her for prioritising matters. She has a point.
Which is....?
-
Thinking about it my husband is circumcised, he's just 59. When we first got together I asked him if he knew why and he said he had no idea & had never thought to ask! It happened before he could remember. Obviously no ill effects, he's always been fine (as was boyrfiend i had before him :-[ )
Let's hope the law takes this seriously as well as being sensitive to traditional beliefs. It will take time to completely eradicate the practice of circumcising babies.
Until, perhaps, the 1960s, it was the fashion - that's why it was done. I recall hearing a conversation between my mother and another woman who had recently had a son: "Did you him done?" And I recall a conversation between relatives when an aunt gave her reasons for not having her recently-born son circumcised.
It was the fashion. No doubt there was a kind of homespun rationale behind it along the lines of ... oh, it prevents disease ... or ... it it's got to be done it's better it's done now. There was never any clinical intervention or advice involved, and the father was never involved in the decision (except, perhaps, the state of his penis being a consideration). Circumcision was a decision taken by the midwife and the mother, no-one else - but there is the possibility that it may have been influenced by discussion with other women.
I raised this topic because a grandmother in Nottingham had determined that a baby boy should be circumcised and had convinced a medical practitioner to do her bidding. This was contrary to the boy's mother's wishes. The police appear paralysed with indecision.
Incidentally, although there was unlikely to be any clinical involvement in the decision, the medical profession was not entirely blameless - infantile prepuces were much sought-after for their use in skin grafting.
-
Which is....?
That there are other more important issues. Don't you agree? You probably know people who were circumcised,does it bother them?
Harrowby - infantile prepuces were much sought-after for their use in skin grafting.
Never knew that! i'M all for not wasting anything where possible.
-
... and how many Jewish men do you know who've had problems because of it.
I've stated I'm against it unless there is a medical reason but there are other far more important issues.
And how would you know that a Jewish man had problems because of it?
-
Which is....?
You can only discuss things that are on the edges. Not important things.
-
And how would you know that a Jewish man had problems because of it?
Because thousands and thousands of them tell us they don't.
( in fact the vast majority)
You just ignore them.
-
You can only discuss things that are on the edges. Not important things.
"You"?
-
Because thousands and thousands of them tell us they don't.
( in fact the vast majority)
You just ignore them.
So they speak for every one?
-
So they speak for every one?
Pretty much! The vast majority of Jewish men have no issue with it.
-
That there are other more important issues. Don't you agree?
Sure there are but why can't we also discuss the less important issues?
Is it not the whole point that everyone has been hanging on about, post the attacks?
Carry on as normal, don't let them win, don't succumb to fear.
If you go around policing people like the thought-police then you are doing just that - letting them win!
-
Pretty much! The vast majority of Jewish men have no issue with it.
And where does that leave the ones who do?
Also, tying it purely to a religion is missing the point - routine, that is to say automatic circumcision was the norm in the USA until very recently, with rates in some areas of the States reaching 90%+. That's an awful lot more circumcisions than the number of Jews and Muslims combined. This had nothing directly to do with religion (though there's no denying that it was an element in the background) and, as was pointed out earlier, was based on the extremely weird ideas of some extremely weird and unpleasant individuals such as the aforementioned J. H. Kellogg.
-
Sure there are but why can't we also discuss the less important issues?
Is it not the whole point that everyone has been hanging on about, post the attacks?
Carry on as normal, don't let them win, don't succumb to fear.
If you go around policing people like the thought-police then you are doing just that - letting them win!
When you can't discuss something, that's thought police.
Why should the vast majority of Jewish men conform to what you think about it, when it isn't something in your life?
Why should they accept your view there is a problem with it, when they have no problem with it?
You are being the thought police, by dictating to them how they should feel about it, instead of listening to what THEY have to actually say on it?
It's not really your business.
Not unless you are Jewish.
-
To keep on about another mans foreskin, and use that against them, when they are happy not to have it, is harassment imo.
To the point that it could be seen as antisemitism, if it's bad enough.
-
When you can't discuss something, that's thought police.
Why should the vast majority of Jewish men conform to what you think about it, when it isn't something in your life?
Why should they accept your view there is a problem with it, when they have no problem with it?
You are being the thought police, by dictating to them how they should feel about it, instead of listening to what THEY have to actually say on it?
It's not really your business.
Not unless you are Jewish.
Are you Jewish?
-
To keep on about another mans foreskin, and use that against them, when they are happy not to have it, is harassment imo.
Who is doing that? No one that I've seen.
However, plenty of men are not happy about it and consider it an abusive violation of their rights - groups/organisations abound. While I'm sure you would love them to shut up and go away so that you can carry on simpering about Jewish men, they won't and neither should they.
-
Are you Jewish?
No, but I'm quite happy for Jewish men to decide if it's an issue or not ( in which case it would stop.
I don't feel a need to control and dictate to them and meddle in their life.
Whether male circumcision continues should be left to those it effects.
Jewish men are adults, they can make up their own minds.
If Jewish men decide not to, because it's no longer considered to be necessary, then that is up to them.
I wouldn't argue for it, either.
However they don't see it as a problem,and the vast majority of objectors seem to have no sympathy towards Judaism at all and in the majority of cases they are not even men that have had it done.
Some people use it to attack Jews, I hate that.
-
No, but I'm quite happy for Jewish men to decide if it's an issue or not ( in which case it would stop.
I don't feel a need to control and dictate to them and meddle in their life.
Whether male circumcision continues should be left to those it effects.
Well that's you out of the discussion straight away, isn't it?
Jewish men are adults, they can make up their own minds.
Except they are not afforded that luxury are they?
Eight days old?
Think about it slowly. Take all the time you need.
-
Who is doing that? No one that I've seen.
However, plenty of men are not happy about it and consider it an abusive violation of their rights - groups/organisations abound. While I'm sure you would love them to shut up and go away so that you can carry on simpering about Jewish men, they won't and neither should they.
Who are these other " groups" ? In the uk it isn't standard practice.
-
No, but I'm quite happy for Jewish men to decide if it's an issue or not ( in which case it would stop.
I don't feel a need to control and dictate to them and meddle in their life.
Whether male circumcision continues should be left to those it effects.
Jewish men are adults, they can make up their own minds.
If Jewish men decide not to, because it's no longer considered to be necessary, then that is up to them.
I wouldn't argue for it.
However they don't see it as a problem,and the vast majority of objectors seem to have no sympathy towards Judaism at all and in the majority of cases they are not even men that have had it done.
Some people use it to attack Jews, I hate that.
So, on the basis that the adults can decide on behalf of Jewish boys who then get circumcised, are you are as equally relaxed when adults decide to subject girls to FGM?
-
Well that's you out of the discussion straight away, isn't it?
Except they are not afforded that luxury are they?
Eight days old?
Think about it slowly. Take all the time you need.
I don't need any time, those babies grow into men and are quite capable of expressing an opinion.
-
So, on the basis that the adults can decide on behalf of Jewish boys who then get circumcised, are you are as equally relaxed when adults decide to subject girls to FGM?
No, because as has often been pointed out before, it's not the same thing.
-
I don't need any time, those babies grow into men and are quite capable of expressing an opinion.
Er, the point is it's too late by then? Hello?
-
Er, the point is it's too late by then? Hello?
Not really.
If enough Jewish men felt it was an issue, they would say so.
-
To keep on about another mans foreskin, and use that against them, when they are happy not to have it, is harassment imo.
To the point that it could be seen as antisemitism, if it's bad enough.
Whether you're happy with it or not, it's still mutilation.
-
No, because as has often been pointed out before, it's not the same thing.
Seems to me that slicing off bits of little boys on the basis of tradition and slicing off bits of little girls on the basis of tradition aren't all that different: so on what basis do you say they aren't the same thing?
-
Not really.
If enough Jewish men felt it was an issue, they would say so.
Super: but a tad post-hoc wouldn't you say?
-
Not really.
If enough Jewish men felt it was an issue, they would say so.
They do - given your fixation on Jewish men as though they're the only ones ever circumcised I'd have thought you'd have known this.
It's presumably this same fixation which leads you to be ignorant of and patently unable to respond to the fact that as in the aforementioned USA (also Australia to a lesser extent), most circumcision wasn't and isn't religiously based, but founded on crankery and quackery.
-
Super: but a tad post-hoc wouldn't you say?
Like she cares about that.
-
I don't need any time, those babies grow into men and are quite capable of expressing an opinion.
Rose, I am now expressing an opinion.
As I stated earlier in this thread, I had my foreskin removed when I was just a few days old. I was mutilated and I had no choice in the matter. It matters little that the damage I suffered was not of the scale that FGM involves. My physical integrity was violated.
I have had to live my life with a glans that has become keratinised, not having the mucosa layer on the inner face of my prepuce, and having had one of the most intensely innervated tissues in the male human body removed. I have been denied some of the sensations that my body was designed to experience. I have no idea whether they are trivial or considerable. They were taken away from me.
I do hope that your response to this will not be something along the lines of "what you've never had you've never missed".
-
Rose, I am now expressing an opinion.
As I stated earlier in this thread, I had my foreskin removed when I was just a few days old. I was mutilated and I had no choice in the matter. It matters little that the damage I suffered was not of the scale that FGM involves. My physical integrity was violated.
I have had to live my life with a glans that has become keratinised, not having the mucosa layer on the inner face of my prepuce, and having had one of the most intensely innervated tissues in the male human body removed. I have been denied some of the sensations that my body was designed to experience. I have no idea whether they are trivial or considerable. They were taken away from me.
I do hope that your response to this will not be something along the lines of "what you've never had you've never missed".
No, if you had yours removed and you feel that was wrong, and you have missed out, you have every right to object as would any Jewish man who objected.
However you can't assume you can speak for everyone else and make value judgements on their behalf.
For there to be a change to Jewish traditions and values it has to come from within Judaism.
Every man who has been circumcised has a right to an opinion, but not dictate to every other man.
Jewish men are perfectly capable of expressing their own objections.
If there aren't enough of them objecting then there is no problem.
Maybe they consider the circumcision and what it means to them more important than loss of feeling.
They too are entitled to their opinion.
-
They do - given your fixation on Jewish men as though they're the only ones ever circumcised I'd have thought you'd have known this.
It's presumably this same fixation which leads you to be ignorant of and patently unable to respond to the fact that as in the aforementioned USA (also Australia to a lesser extent), most circumcision wasn't and isn't religiously based, but founded on crankery and quackery.
The posts on the thread were aimed at religious circumcision, stop moving the goal posts.
-
No, if you had yours removed and you feel that was wrong, and you have missed out, you have every right to object as would any Jewish man who objected.
However you can't assume you can speak for everyone else and make value judgements on their behalf.
For there to be a change to Jewish traditions and values it has to come from within Judaism.
Every man who has been circumcised has a right to an opinion, but not dictate to every other man.
Jewish men are perfectly capable of expressing their own objections.
If there aren't enough of them objecting then there is no problem.
Maybe they consider the circumcision and what it means to them more important than loss of feeling.
They too are entitled to their opinion.
There is a simple solution: don't circumcise babies (who obviously can't consent) and if as adults they elect to be circumcised then fine.
You seem to be advancing no more than a fallacious argument from tradition.
-
There is a simple solution: don't circumcise babies (who obviously can't consent) and if as adults they elect to be circumcised then fine.
You seem to be advancing no more than a fallacious argument from tradition.
Not really.
It's about protecting minority rights and a certain amount of freedom.
Human rights.
-
It's not even like I had my own sons circumcised.
It's more to do with protecting the human rights of minority groups to make (within certain limits) their own value judgments.
So they are not shoe horned into being forced to be, and hold the same values as everyone else.
So people can be free, up to a point to follow their own values.
Respecting diversity and minority groups.
Not that I expect much understanding of that here.
-
Not really.
It's about protecting minority rights and a certain amount of freedom.
Human rights.
So, since we are talking about religious tradition here and not medical necessity, is it a human right to be able to authorise the mutilation of children in order to comply with your preferred religious tradition? Moreover, where are the human rights to protect children from such mutilation when they are not in a position to give informed consent?
However you cut it (pun intended) it is barbarism that no fallacious arguments from authority or special pleading can excuse: by the way you've still how to explain how forced circumcision is fundamentally different from forced FGM.
-
So, since we are talking about religious tradition here and not medical necessity, is it a human right to be able to authorise the mutilation of children in order to comply with your preferred religious tradition? Moreover, where are the human rights to protect children from such mutilation when they are not in a position to give informed consent?
However you cut it (pun intended) it is barbarism that no fallacious arguments from authority or special pleading can excuse: by the way you've still how to explain how forced circumcision is fundamentally different from forced FGM.
Yes it is a human right, the freedom to practice their religion.
Jews are allowed to circumcise their babies.
In the UK and in many other countries as well.
-
Yes it is a human right, the freedom to practice their religion.
Jews are allowed to circumcise their babies.
In the UK and in many other countries as well.
What if their religion wanted them to kill their first born?
Would you sanction murder?
-
What if their religion wanted them to kill their first born?
Would you sanction murder?
No murder and FGM are illegal, for good reason.
-
No murder and FGM are illegal, for good reason.
But male genital mutilation is OK?
-
It's not even like I had my own sons circumcised.
It's more to do with protecting the human rights of minority groups to make (within certain limits) their own value judgments.
So they are not shoe horned into being forced to be, and hold the same values as everyone else.
So people can be free, up to a point to follow their own values.
Respecting diversity and minority groups.
Not that I expect much understanding of that here.
Don't know about you but I'm quite happy to see people 'shoehorned' into not mutilating their children.
As far as I'm aware anyone caught practising FGM in the UK on the basis of religious tradition would find themselves in very serious trouble, so your argument about diversity and respecting specific religious traditions fails since there are legal constraints involved when it comes to FGM - so why is circumcision different?
Can't see that there is one unless you want to indulge in special pleading that one type of child mutilation in the name of religion is fine but another isn't, and 'it's tradition' is a fallacious justification for such barbarism.
-
The difference between circumcision and FGM for Gordon who appears not to know
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/jun/15/male-circumcision-ban-health-religion-debate
-
Yes it is a human right, the freedom to practice their religion.
Jews are allowed to circumcise their babies.
In the UK and in many other countries as well.
So they are: time they were stopped from doing so.
-
But male genital mutilation is OK?
It's "circumcision" not " male genital mutilation" changing the term to an emotional one doesn't change the fact that FGM and circumcision are different things.
It's trying to make the term emotive to cover the lack of a good argument.
-
So they are: time they were stopped from doing so.
That's why human rights are there for minority groups.
So they get heard.
No one cares about your opinion, Gordon.
-
Yes it is a human right, the freedom to practice their religion.
Except that when imposed upon another - in this case a subject incapable of informed consent - it's no longer about freedom to practice a religion but enforcing religion on one who can't offer an opinion as to whether they want it or not. If this were only about consenting adults practising religion then people can happily lop off whatever bits of themselves they like. They can decapitate themselves for all I care. However, when you bring in another party, that's when rights start to be infringed.
Jews are allowed to circumcise their babies.
In the UK and in many other countries as well.
They should not be.
-
That's why human rights are there for minority groups.
But you don't seem to care about minorities when the minority consists of men who object to having been circumcised (i.e #50, #57, #64).
No one cares about your opinion, Gordon.
I do.
Aside from you, who cares about yours?
-
The difference between circumcision and FGM for Gordon who appears not to know
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/jun/15/male-circumcision-ban-health-religion-debate
I'm well aware of the difference thanks, and I suggest you read this opinion piece again since it also deploys the argument from tradition and is written by, as the author notes in the piece, an orthodox jew: do you think he might be biased at all?
-
I'm well aware of the difference thanks, and I suggest you read this opinion piece again since it also deploys the argument from tradition and is written by, as the author notes in the piece, an orthodox jew: do you think he might be biased at all?
Yes, he is a man who has been circumcised and sees no problem with it.
The important thing is this bit.
"As a father and an Orthodox Jew, if there was significant evidence of harm, I would not subject my child to the practice. I would also expect religious authorities to restrict male circumcision before such a ban was needed. But on the current evidence, a ban is unnecessary."
And this bit
"Banning male circumcision would have an enormous effect on religious practice. In Judaism, circumcision is one of the most basic requirements of the religion, although it should be noted that Jewish law prohibits circumcision if it would be unsafe for the child.
That said, just because a custom is old and religiously significant should not make it immune to the law. "
For Jews to stop performing circumcisions you need to clearly show it is unsafe for it to be performed.
Doctors and the medical authorities and the WHO seem to disagree with the view that it is harmful.
So you need to convince doctors and professionals that it is.
If you can't , then that's because it's not.
-
That's why human rights are there for minority groups.
So they get heard.
No one cares about your opinion, Gordon.
So, how are these human rights delivered for those who cannot express themselves to consent, such as little boys about to be mutilated?
You seem to be avoiding that particular aspect.
-
Yes, he is a man who has been circumcised and sees no problem with it.
The important thing is this bit.
"As a father and an Orthodox Jew, if there was significant evidence of harm, I would not subject my child to the practice. I would also expect religious authorities to restrict male circumcision before such a ban was needed. But on the current evidence, a ban is unnecessary."
I think the time has come to be less tolerant of bat shit crazy religious traditions that cause harm.
-
So, where how are these human rights delivered for those who cannot express themselves to consent, such as little boys about to be mutilated?
You seem to be avoiding that particular aspect.
No, little boys grow up to be men with an opinion which disagrees with yours.
-
No, little boys grow up to be men with an opinion which disagrees with yours.
When they are men, they can decide for themselves.
-
Yes, he is a man who has been circumcised and sees no problem with it.
The important thing is this bit.
"As a father and an Orthodox Jew, if there was significant evidence of harm, I would not subject my child to the practice. I would also expect religious authorities to restrict male circumcision before such a ban was needed. But on the current evidence, a ban is unnecessary."
Super: but that is his opinion, and he doesn't address the problem of circumcision (which is irreversible) being imposed on boys and no amount of post-hoc rationalisation changes that.
As I said he, and you, are advancing a fallacious argument from tradition and it seems that in terms of human rights you seem to think this should extend to the right of adults to mutilate children on the basis of religious tradition alone: after all, if it's such a good idea why not wait until these boys are adult and can give informed consent?
-
I think the time has come to be less tolerant of bat shit crazy religious traditions that cause harm.
As I said, WHO and other medical experts don't agree it causes harm.
I value their qualified opinion over yours.
If you see minority groups as " bat shit crazy religious traditions" it says more about you than it does them.
You would just be dismissed as an antisemite and bigot because you are disregarding the opinion of medical experts and WHO.
-
As I said, WHO and other medical experts don't agree it causes harm.
I value their qualified opinion over yours.
If you see minority groups as " bat shit crazy religious traditions" it says more about you than it does them.
You would just be dismissed as an antisemite and bigot because you are disregarding the opinion of medical experts and WHO.
Are you happy for me to practice whatever I dream up as my religious practice and subject you to it, as long as some other body says it does not cause harm?
Or would you like to give consent?
-
No, little boys grow up to be men with an opinion which disagrees with yours.
Kinda too late then though, and as the article you linked to shows their default involvement in such traditions during their childhood can exert an influence that, as adults, allows them to think mutilating children is fine.
Surprised to see you defending such barbarism: wouldn't be me.
-
Super: but that is his opinion, and he doesn't address the problem of circumcision (which is irreversible) being imposed on boys and no amount of post-hoc rationalisation changes that.
As I said he, and you, are advancing a fallacious argument from tradition and it seems that in terms of human rights you seem to think this should extend to the right of adults to mutilate children on the basis of religious tradition alone: after all, if it's such a good idea why not wait until these boys are adult and can give informed consent?
I have no issue if that's what someone wants to do, but I do have an issue with people going against the opinions of the WHO and medical opinion to take a swipe at what they see as " bat shit crazy religious traditions" without any real meaningful evidence.
If WHO found it didn't cause harm, and other qualified doctors who are you to know better?
-
Are you happy for me to practice whatever I dream up as my religious practice and subject you to it, as long as some other body says it does not cause harm?
Or would you like to give consent?
You are drifting off the subject and creating a straw man
-
I have no issue if that's what someone wants to do, but I do have an issue with people going against the opinions of the WHO and medical opinion to take a swipe at what they see as " bat shit crazy religious traditions" without any real meaningful evidence.
If WHO found it didn't cause harm, and other qualified doctors who are you to know better?
Of course it causes harm.
They are now mutilated.
I suspect they too are bending over backwards not to offend bat shit crazy traditions just because they are religious.
If I dreamt one up today, would my bat shit crazy idea be given the same treatment?
-
I have no issue if that's what someone wants to do, but I do have an issue with people going against the opinions of the WHO and medical opinion to take a swipe at what they see as " bat shit crazy religious traditions" without any real meaningful evidence.
If WHO found it didn't cause harm, and other qualified doctors who are you to know better?
The posts on the thread were aimed at religious circumcision, stop moving the goal posts.
-
Kinda too late then though, and as the article you linked to shows their default involvement in such traditions during their childhood can exert an influence that, as adults, allows them to think mutilating children is fine.
Surprised to see you defending such barbarism: wouldn't be me.
I'd defend someone's right to belong to a minority group and practice their religion if they are backed up by scientific evidence that those practices cause very little harm.
In this case, they are.
-
But the subject of this thread is religious not medical circumcision - stop moving the goalposts.
I'm talking about religious circumcision. Keep up!
-
I'd defend someone's right to belong to a minority group and practice their religion if they are backed up by scientific evidence that those practices cause very little harm.
In this case, they are.
Me too.
Belong to whatever group you like.
But I draw the line at mutilating children.
You seem not to care?
-
I'm talking about religious circumcision. Keep up!
So why invoke the WHO/"medical opinion"/"qualified doctors" to shore up your "case" about a religious issue?
-
I suspect they too are bending over backwards not to offend bat shit crazy traditions just because they are religious.
'Twas ever thus :(
-
Of course it causes harm.
They are now mutilated.
I suspect they too are bending over backwards not to offend bat shit crazy traditions just because they are religious.
If I dreamt one up today, would my bat shit crazy idea be given the same treatment?
Well you go and tell the medical professionals and WHO that their experts have it wrong based on your opinion alone and that you think their qualifications are worth nothing.
See how far you get.
-
As I said, WHO and other medical experts don't agree it causes harm.
I value their qualified opinion over yours.
If you see minority groups as " bat shit crazy religious traditions" it says more about you than it does them.
You would just be dismissed as an antisemite and bigot because you are disregarding the opinion of medical experts and WHO.
That WHO say it causes no major harm is a medical opinion and not an ethical one: I'd have thought that being deprived of part of your anatomy, even in safe medical conditions, raises issues of consent and personal autonomy. You seem to be conflating the medical aspects with the moral aspects, or more accurately ignoring the latter in favour of the former.
I seem to remember legislation was introduced to prevent the routine docking of the tails of dogs where it was deemed cosmetic, unnecessary and caused avoidable pain (with I think exceptions for some working dogs where injury was a risk) - yet baby boys can be mutilated in the name of religious tradition!
-
Well you go and tell the medical professionals and WHO that their experts have it wrong based on your opinion alone and that you think their qualifications are worth nothing.
See how far you get.
I don't care, they have been got at by the bat shit crazy stuff.
Harm has clearly been caused, so they are wrong.
I care about not harming children.
Why don't you?
-
I'd defend someone's right to belong to a minority group and practice their religion if they are backed up by scientific evidence that those practices cause very little harm.
In this case, they are.
So, that makes it right?
-
Rose clearly believes in the imposition of religion upon those incapable of giving or witholding consent.
All the rage in some parts of the middle east these days, I gather.
-
So why invoke the WHO/"medical opinion"/"qualified doctors" to shore up your "case" about a religious issue?
http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/neonatal_child_MC_UNAIDS.pdf
Because your argument relies on it causing harm, the world health organisation disagrees with you.
So when people look at religious circumcision they look at the evidence for harm.
Unless you want to ignore the evidence and just declare because it's religion you are going to discriminate.
-
http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/neonatal_child_MC_UNAIDS.pdf
Because your argument relies on it causing harm, the world health organisation disagrees with you.
So when people look at religious circumcision they look at the evidence for harm.
There is harm that much is clear. Why else do they do it?
Forget what they say anyway as this is a moral decision.
YOU need to answer for yourself.
Do you care about chopping bits off babies?
It is yes or no.
If no, how much can I chop off before you do care?
Can I remove the eyes?
-
http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/neonatal_child_MC_UNAIDS.pdf
Because your argument relies on it causing harm, the world health organisation disagrees with you.
My argument relies upon it being a violation of the right to bodily integrity and the right to have freedom from as well as freedom of religion, i.e. religion and its markers and indicators should not be imposed upon those who cannot agree or disagree.
Unless you want to ignore the evidence and just declare because it's religion you are going to discriminate.
If it's wrong, it's wrong whether you do it in the name of deranged beliefs about the nature of reality or not.
-
There is harm that much is clear. Why else do they do it?
Forget what they say anyway as this is a moral decision.
YOU need to answer for yourself.
Do you care about chopping bits off babies?
It is yes or no.
If no, how much can I chop off before you do care?
Can I remove the eyes?
Now you are just being silly.
-
http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/neonatal_child_MC_UNAIDS.pdf
Because your argument relies on it causing harm, the world health organisation disagrees with you.
So when people look at religious circumcision they look at the evidence for harm.
Unless you want to ignore the evidence and just declare because it's religion you are going to discriminate.
No they don't: they also look at it from the point of view of the morality of mutilating children who are unable to advocate for themselves on the basis of tradition and not medical necessity, and they seek an end to this abomination.
You seem intent on defending the indefensible.
-
Now you are just being silly.
Why?
I am just exploring how much harm has to be done till you care.
-
http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/neonatal_child_MC_UNAIDS.pdf
Because your argument relies on it causing harm, the world health organisation disagrees with you.
Rose
This is what I stated in an earlier post:
I have had to live my life with a glans that has become keratinised, not having the mucosa layer on the inner face of my prepuce, and having had one of the most intensely innervated tissues in the male human body removed.
Please note:
1 Keratinised tissue - soft, sensitive skin becoming drier and thicker
2 Removal of mucosal layer of skin - soft, lubricated layer of skin removed
3 Very large number of sensitive nerve cells removed thereby destroying information pathways to the brain.
And you consider that this is NOT HARM?
Not only that, but you justify it being done to eight-day old babies simply because it always has been done? Circumcision is a remnant of a very primitive belief system. Judaism would be strengthened by its abolition. It would be evidence of compassion not vacuous ritual.
-
Rose
This is what I stated in an earlier post:
Please note:
1 Keratinised tissue - soft, sensitive skin becoming drier and thicker
2 Removal of mucosal layer of skin - soft, lubricated layer of skin removed
3 Very large number of sensitive nerve cells removed thereby destroying information pathways to the brain.
And you consider that this is NOT HARM?
Not only that, but you justify it being done to eight-day old babies simply because it always has been done? Circumcision is a remnant of a very primitive belief system. Judaism would be strengthened by its abolition. It would be evidence of compassion not vacuous ritual.
It's the WHO and doctors who concluded it didn't cause harm.
I consider both they and Jewish men are qualified to make that claim if that's what the latest research shows.
You may feel it constitutes harm but the scientific evidence seems to be against you.
-
It's the WHO and doctors who concluded it didn't cause harm.
I consider both they and Jewish men are qualified to make that claim if that's what the latest research shows.
You may feel it constitutes harm but the scientific evidence seems to be against you.
So you just follow orders and have only moral compass of your own.
If they said removing eyes caused no harm, presumably you would go along with that as well?
-
Why?
I am just exploring how much harm has to be done till you care.
No, you are just avoiding the evidence and trying to force my unqualified opinion to match your unqualified opinion.
The fact is, the research done on it undermines your argument.
-
So you just follow orders and have only moral compass of your own.
If they said removing eyes caused no harm, presumably you would go along with that as well?
Undoubtedly ::)
-
So you just follow orders and have only moral compass of your own.
If they said removing eyes caused no harm, presumably you would go along with that as well?
Now it's personal insults.
You are scraping the barrel.
Unless you have something to say about the finding of medical professionals and statistics, it's all just your opinion with no facts.
I'm out of this thread.
You need to look at the facts, not insult people.
-
Now it's personal insults.
You are scraping the barrel.
Unless you have something to say about the finding of medical professionals and statistics, it's all just your opinion with no facts.
I'm out of this thread.
You need to look at the facts, not insult people.
The fact is that you have no moral opinion on mutilation, and just hide behind others saying it is fine.
Forget their moral opinion, I am not interested in that.
What is YOUR moral position on the mutilation?
-
The fact is that you have no moral opinion on mutilation, and just hide behind others saying it is fine.
Forget their moral opinion, I am not interested in that.
What is YOUR moral position on the mutilation?
It's not a mutilation.
It's not a fact, it's your opinion! ( the fact is........)
Actually I do have a moral position, it's allowing others the freedom to be different as much as I can.
My moral position is I don't dictate how others should live, when the medical evidence is that their practice isn't a matter of concern. The evidence is in their favour.
I think it's immoral to interfere in such a private matter, other people should be able to live their own lives without interference provided the medical evidence and research shows it isn't having a negative effect on them.
I don't interfere and meddle in other people's lives, unless there is an absolute need.
Circumcision doesn't require me to meddle and require laws against it, FGM does.
My moral position is I don't meddle and attack others way of life, to force them to become the same as me.
You are intolerant of others and those who are of a different opinion to yourself.
Whereas I am more sensitive to diversity in approach, to how people live.
I don't need to tell Muslim women how to dress either.
It's part of the same thing, because it comes down to attitude, and respecting diversity only drawing the line where the research on it shows harm.
On circumcision it doesn't.
Not ATM.
That's my moral position.
That I don't interfere with others lives, based on my own cultural background.
When you do it's a form of prejudice.
I have never succeeded in getting people on here, to understand my moral position on anything.
I can support people's right to have nudist colonies while respecting someone else's wish to wear a niquab.
I can respect someone's religious tradition to perform circumcision ( while WHO and other medical bodies say it is relatively harmless, based on their evidence) while objecting strongly to FGM ( which is shown by the same medical bodies to greatly harm women)
When weighing up the pros and cons you have to take ALL sides of the argument into account.
-
It certainly is mutilation and you could use all the same arguments you're making now to allow fgm.
-
It's not a mutilation.
Yes it is: 'mutilate' seems to perfectly fit the tradition of chopping bits off of baby boys.
Actually I do have a moral position, it's allowing others the freedom to be different as much as I can.
So your moral position is that it is acceptable to mutilate children in order to comply with religious tradition.
My moral position is I don't dictate how others should live, when the medical evidence is that their practice isn't a matter of concern. The evidence is in their favour.
Which isn't an argument based only on morality, and yet here you are setting out your moral position (which is that it is acceptable to mutilate children).
I think it's immoral to interfere in such a private matter, other people should be able to live their own lives without interference provided the medical evidence and research shows it isn't having a negative effect on them.
Is FGM immoral or not then? Your attempts to separate this from circumcision are spurious since both involve mutilation on the basis of tradition.
I don't interfere and meddle in other people's lives, unless there is an absolute need.
I'd say there is a need when children are being routinely mutilated in order to comply with religious tradition.
Circumcision doesn't require me to meddle and require laws against it, FGM does.
You've yet to explain the moral difference between the two.
That's my moral position.
So you say: however I'm not sure you actually have an identifiable or cogent moral position on this matter, no matter how much you think you do.
-
There is no way you can justify circumcising a child except for genuine medical reasons, which must always be carried out by a trained medic in a hospital environment, imo.
-
Rose is just stating that the procedure is generally safe, were that not the case there wouldn't be healthy male Jews,Muslims and many Africans of various cultures walking around normally, enjoying married life and fathering children. When things go wrong they are the exception to the rule. Male circumcision is not the same as FGM which is frequently unsafe.
My belief is still that ritual circumcision should only be carried out when a boy is old enough to understand and consent & then by medically qualified people. I think that will be the case in this country in time because even one botched job is one too much.
(I found Harrowby's account of the result of his circumcision very sad.)
-
I think it's immoral to interfere in such a private matter
Funnily enough that's precisely and exactly why I'm so against circumcision, male or female. People own themselves; their bodies are their own, and all decisions pertaining thereto should be made by them once at the age of majority. We do it with tattooing, for example - presumably you would say it's fine to tattoo babies and children if it was done in the name of tradition. Or are you just going to write it off as another straw man?
people should be able to live their own lives without interference
Precisely, precisely. Hence no routine or ritual circumcision.
I don't interfere and meddle in other people's lives
Circumcision seems like a prime example of interference and meddling with the bodies of those who can't give consent to being meddled with. Primum non nocere.
I have never succeeded in getting people on here, to understand my moral position on anything.
That's because you mount incredibly poor arguments.
When weighing up the pros and cons you have to take ALL sides of the argument into account
Although you seem to quickly wave aside the accounts of those men who feel violated and abused by having had circumcision foisted upon them without their consent, you wretched hypocrite.
-
Rose is just stating that the procedure is generally safe, were that not the case there wouldn't be healthy male Jews,Muslims and many Africans of various cultures walking around normally, enjoying married life and fathering children. When things go wrong they are the exception to the rule. Male circumcision is not the same as FGM which is frequently unsafe.
Medical safety at the point of mutilation, or that there may or may not longer-term medical issues, isn't the issue: the issue is a moral one regarding making irreversible invasive changes to the bodies of children who cannot give informed consent and where there is no medical necessity.
It is primitive barbarism, which is no great surprise since it originates from ancient times that were primitive and barbaric.
-
I don't care, they have been got at by the bat shit crazy stuff.
Harm has clearly been caused, so they are wrong.
I care about not harming children.
Why don't you?
y
That is an irrational argument. Of course You are perfectly entitled to be emotional and irrational about children if you want but it's still a bad argument.
Harm is caused when children have all kinds of procedures - but generally people weigh up the risks, the pros and cons and make a decision based on what they think is likely to have the most beneficial outcome. Health professionals rarely make a decision based on making sure they do absolutely no harm. Having injections - metal needles stuck in your arm - causes harm but we all immunise our kids.
The WHO study states that male circumcision is considered a long-term HIV prevention strategy because randomized controlled trials show it has reduced heterosexual male HIV rates by 50-60%.
In societies where male circumcision is culturally practised, this seems a more effective HIV prevention strategy than the education and contraception strategies.
The WHO study states "There are several advantages of circumcising males at a younger versus older age, including a lower risk of complications, faster healing and a lower cost. However, some parents may wish to wait for an older age for religious
or cultural reasons, or have a preference to wait until the child can give consent for the procedure."
Obviously factors to consider are cost, availability and the perception of service quality.
The WHO review shows that circumcision complications are rare when conducted by trained and experienced providers with adequate supplies and in hygienic conditions. However, there is a clear need for comprehensive, ongoing training programmes for both medically trained and non-medically trained providers, which should cover all aspects of the procedure and after-care in order to avoid the current unnecessary morbidity associated with the procedure in many settings."
So if you want to make a good argument that might persuade someone to the rightness of your position, try again with some alternative studies that dispute the WHO study.
-
That is an irrational argument.
Taking a blade to the genitals of babies and children of either sex in the name of a deity doesn't strike me as the gold standard of rationality.
So if you want to make a good argument that might persuade someone to the rightness of your position, try again with some alternative studies that dispute the WHO study.
Plenty of us have done this already - you don't carry out for all intents and purposes permanent body-changing surgery on a subject incapable of informed consent, and especially not in the service of the religion of a third party which the subject of the surgery isn't given a chance to exercise a free choice to adopt or refuse.
It doesn't seem to sink in with some people, however.
-
Taking a blade to the genitals of babies and children of either sex in the name if a deity doesn't strike me as the gold standard of rationality.
Plenty of us have done this already - you don't carry out for all intents and purposes permanent body-changing surgery on a subject incapable of informed consent.
It doesn't seem to sink in with some people, however.
Come back to me when you have a rational argument based on studies, not irrational emotive arguments based on your prejudices.
Asserting that you have a good argument is still just an assertion. Parents and health professionals make decisions about permanent body changing surgery on children all the time - one of the responsibilities of being a parent is to give informed consent on behalf of their children.
The WHO study stated "There are several advantages of circumcising males at a younger versus older age, including a lower risk of complications, faster healing and a lower cost."
That may well be a factor in a parent's decision. Apart from HIV, male circumcision also helps prevent and control certain STDs and if there is less risk of complications if carried out as a baby and it is cheaper than adult circumcision, it is unlikely that this cultural practice will die out anytime soon, especially given the financial and emotional cost of HIV in families and societies.
-
Come back to me when you have a rational argument based on studies, not irrational emotive arguments based on your prejudices.
That's the very phrase I should be using against you, but I know that I would be waiting a long, long, long time.
Like the other advocate of enforced surgery of infants on this thread, you lean on medical opinion for an act of religious barbarism when it suits.
-
That's the very phrase I should be using against you, but I know that I would be waiting a long, long, long time.
Like the other advocate of enforced surgery of infants on this thread, you lean on medical opinion for an act of religious barbarism when it suits.
Do you have anything other than a string of empty words about what you incorrectly think you know to counter the WHO study or not?
It doesn't suit. I am not for circumcision on religious grounds - in Islam male circumcision is a sunnah - preferable - it is not fard - compulsory. If I had a son I would not circumcise him based on religious grounds. But I might based on medical grounds. Got a study - or am I going to be waiting a very, very long time for a rational argument from you?
-
What exactly is the overwhelming objection to leaving a body alone until such a time as the 'owner' (for want of a better term) is capable of fully informed consent as to what happens to it?
-
As has been said before, circumcision should only be carried out if there is a medical problem specific to the person concerned.
-
What exactly is the overwhelming objection to leaving a body alone until such a time as the 'owner' (for want of a better term) is capable of fully informed consent as to what happens to it?
As stated in my previous reply based on the WHO study "Apart from HIV, male circumcision also helps prevent and control certain STDs and if there is less risk of complications if carried out as a baby and it is cheaper than adult circumcision, it is unlikely that this cultural practice will die out anytime soon, especially given the financial and emotional cost of HIV in families and societies."
There is a lot of money pumped into strategies to prevent or control HIV and in treating HIV and supporting societies and families dealing with widespread HIV in their societies - billions of dollars in fact. If circumcision of babies is an effective strategy because there is not enough take-up as adults then it's a valid argument.
-
As stated in my previous reply based on the WHO study "Apart from HIV, male circumcision also helps prevent and control certain STDs and if there is less risk of complications if carried out as a baby and it is cheaper than adult circumcision, it is unlikely that this cultural practice will die out anytime soon, especially given the financial and emotional cost of HIV in families and societies."
Even if that is true, but I think it is doubtful, it isn't right to circumcise all males, just in case!
-
As stated in my previous reply based on the WHO study "Apart from HIV, male circumcision also helps prevent and control certain STDs and if there is less risk of complications if carried out as a baby and it is cheaper than adult circumcision, it is unlikely that this cultural practice will die out anytime soon, especially given the financial and emotional cost of HIV in families and societies."
Wouldn't those points be answered by the correct usage of condoms and not enforced surgery?
The fewer complications thing is invalid and irrelevant to the main issue anyway - there are zero surgical complications to surgery which isn't carried out in the first place.
-
Even if that is true, but I think it is doubtful, it isn't right to circumcise all males, just in case!
Sorry - I just modified my answer above but you had already replied so I will repeat it here.
There is a lot of money pumped into strategies to prevent or control HIV and in treating HIV and supporting societies and families dealing with widespread HIV in their societies - billions of dollars in fact. If circumcision of babies is an effective strategy because there is not enough take-up as adults then it's a valid argument.
-
Wouldn't those points be answered by the correct usage of condoms and not enforced surgery?
Sure but for cultural reasons in certain areas - especially developing countries - men won't wear condoms and women do not have the power in the relationship to enforce condom use. So it seems that until there is widespread condom use, circumcision is the best option.
The fewer complications thing is invalid and irrelevant to the main issue anyway - there are zero surgical complications to surgery which isn't carried out in the first place.
There are various health organisations trying to roll out more circumcision programmes to control the spread of HIV. If it is less risky to have the procedure as a baby, than it becomes a relevant argument under these circumstances.
-
Sorry - I just modified my answer above but you had already replied so I will repeat it here.
There is a lot of money pumped into strategies to prevent or control HIV and in treating HIV and supporting societies and families dealing with widespread HIV in their societies - billions of dollars in fact. If circumcision of babies is an effective strategy because there is not enough take-up as adults then it's a valid argument.
DEFINITELY NOT! :o
-
Sure but for cultural reasons in certain areas - especially developing countries - men won't wear condoms and women do not have the power in the relationship to enforce condom use. So it seems that until there is widespread condom use, circumcision is the best option.
Then bollocks to "cultural reasons". Dish them out and educate people in correct use.
-
Then bollocks to "cultural reasons". Dish them out and educate people in correct use.
Exactly.
-
Then bollocks to "cultural reasons". Dish them out and educate people in correct use.
They are dishing them out and educating people - it is isn't working. Got anything else that actually addresses the complexity of the problem apart from simplistic statements that don't work?
-
DEFINITELY NOT! :o
Guess the health organisations disagree with you. Unless you have any studies to offer to the contrary?
-
They are dishing them out and educating people - it is isn't working. Got anything else that actually addresses the complexity of the problem apart from simplistic statements that don't work?
Yes. Try harder.
Why isn't it working? Got anything that addresses the complexity of the problem apart from simplistic statements?
-
Worth a read.
http://circumcision.org/bias.htm
-
Worth a read.
http://circumcision.org/bias.htm
Indeed.
-
Worth a read.
http://circumcision.org/bias.htm
And concerning circumcision and HIV.
http://www.circumcision.org/hiv.htm
-
Yes. Try harder.
Ok - and until the take-up rate is there and it becomes as effective in HIV control as circumcision, I'll continue to support circumcision.
Why isn't it working? Got anything that addresses the complexity of the problem apart from simplistic statements?
Condom use requires on-going use whereas circumcision is a one-time procedure, and unfortunately human nature is such that people can be lax about safe sex. Also cultural reasons - as I stated above. Maybe you should inform yourself of the current information on the issues and come back with an informed argument for me to consider.
For example:
"If HIV is tackled as a socioeconomic development, women’s empowerment, and human rights issue, it is easer to imagine long-term, sustained success in HIV prevention programs [53–55]. However, it is complex and unprecedented to influence deeply entrenched traditions, social norms, and beliefs; for policy makers to create an environment that reduces risk activities as well as promotes the well being of people living with HIV/AIDS is a challenge that such nations as Uganda and Thailand have met most successfully among those with serious epidemics"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2700301/
-
Worth a read.
http://circumcision.org/bias.htm
Lot's of conjecture about possible psychological reasons for favouring circumcision, and doesn't say anything about the studies that show that circumcision is an effective strategy in preventing /controlling HIV and certain STD outbreaks that have a huge economic and emotional impact on societies and families.
-
Obviously you didn't quite understand the article.
-
And concerning circumcision and HIV.
http://www.circumcision.org/hiv.htm
Yes I agree that circumcision won't protect you from the consequences of certain high-risk behaviours. People are told to take other measures, including condoms, even if they are circumcised and that message is sometimes not getting through. Circumcision is one strategy based on current studies. When less invasive strategies are shown to be effective, circumcision rates will probably fall.
-
Obviously you didn't quite understand the article.
Obviously I did. Disagreeing is not the same as not understanding. It doesn't have enough detail to make it a compelling argument for me.
-
The issue here though, in this thread, is the routine circumcision of children to comply with religious tradition and not the circumcision of (presumably) consenting adults as part of a strategy in managing health issues.
-
The issue here though, in this thread, is the routine circumcision of children to comply with religious tradition and not the circumcision of (presumably) consenting adults as part of a strategy in managing health issues.
But it was Gabtiella that brought that up.
-
If the religious practices are continued based on medical benefits then the medical argument is relevant.
If the take-up rate is better and the risks are reduced if babies are routinely circumcised rather than waiting for them to become sexually active young teens then it is an argument to continue the practice for public health reasons. It all depends on the numbers e.g. how effective certain religious practices are in addressing expensive public health issues.
-
If the religious practices are continued based on medical benefits then the medical argument is relevant.
If the take-up rate is better and the risks are reduced if babies are routinely circumcised rather than waiting for them to become sexually active young teens then it is an argument to continue the practice for public health reasons.
I'm sure if you have a certain cast of mind you can concoct any 'argument' for the continuation of anything no matter how rebarbative if you utterly ignore the immorality of foisting something on someone who can't make their own informed and considered decision about it.
-
If the religious practices are continued based on medical benefits then the medical argument is relevant.
If the take-up rate is better and the risks are reduced if babies are routinely circumcised rather than waiting for them to become sexually active young teens then it is an argument to continue the practice for public health reasons. It all depends on the numbers e.g. how effective certain religious practices are in addressing expensive public health issues.
It is the case though, as far as I can see, that the routine circumcision of babies (in the absence any urgent medical necessity) is done for reasons of compliance with religious tradition or parental preference and not for any future general or sexual health issues that may affect these babies in adulthood.
-
I'm sure if you have a certain cast of mind you can concoct any 'argument' for the continuation of anything no matter how rebarbative if you utterly ignore the immorality of foisting something on someone who can't make their own informed and considered decision about it.
I'm sure if you have a certain cast of mind you can concoct any 'argument' for ignoring rationality or public health studies and just make a purely emotional-based argument.
-
I'm sure if you have a certain cast of mind you can concoct any 'argument' for ignoring rationality or public health studies and just make a purely emotional-based argument.
No doubt, especially if you make a point of studiously ignoring the (im)moral aspects of any given issue and flip-flopping back and forth between (some) medical opinion and religious pseuo-justifications. I mean, who needs ethics after all?
-
It is the case though, as far as I can see, that the routine circumcision of babies (in the absence any urgent medical necessity) is done for reasons of compliance with religious tradition or parental preference and not for any future general or sexual health issues that may affect these babies in adulthood.
My experience is different - when I've asked Muslims in England about male circumcision in the 20th and 21st centuries they say it is sunnah and has medical benefits. I think as religious people become more informed based on more widespread education, including medical information, they don't just rely on tradition as an answer to continue their practices.
-
My experience is different - when I've asked Muslims in England about male circumcision in the 20th and 21st centuries they say it is sunnah and has medical benefits. I think as religious people become more informed based on more widespread education, including medical information, they don't just rely on tradition as an answer to continue their practices.
To paraphrase F. H. Bradley, the finding of spurious reasons to justify what rank superstition would have them do anyway.
-
No doubt, especially if you make a point of studiously ignoring the (im)moral aspects of any given issue and flip-flopping back and forth between some medical opinion and religious pseuo-justification. I mean, who needs ethics after all?
Morals are subjective so clearly I am not ignoring morals - I am just disagreeing with yours.
Having more than one argument to offer in support of an opinion is not flip-flopping but you can pretend it is if it helps you.
-
To paraphrase F. H. Bradley, the finding of spurious reasons to justify what rank superstition would have them do anyway.
You haven't shown them to be spurious.
-
You haven't shown them to be spurious.
No - ad_orientem did, although there are plenty of other sources beside his.
-
No - ad_orientem did, although there are plenty of other sources beside his.
No - they just challenged the studies that support circumcision and argued for possible bias - not the same thing as showing something to be spurious.
-
My experience is different - when I've asked Muslims in England about male circumcision in the 20th and 21st centuries they say it is sunnah and has medical benefits. I think as religious people become more informed based on more widespread education, including medical information, they don't just rely on tradition as an answer to continue their practices.
If it were the case that circumcising babies was best medical practice then surely it would be routine wherever medical practice was good: and that isn't the case. As far as I can see the main drivers for routinely circumcising babies are religion tradition or parental preference and not immediate medical need.
That those subscribing to a particular tradition say that the requirements of their tradition seem sound to them, or involves no real harm since they (in this case the men) have survived to tell the tale, surely involves the risks of post-hoc rationalisation and confirmation bias.
-
Someone told me that male babies are routinely circumcised in the USA, i think the majority are. Interesting, I wondered why and found this on goggling - https://matthewtontonoz.com/2015/01/05/why-is-circumcision-so-popular-in-america/
& this - http://www.parents.com/baby/care/bath/facts-and-feelings-about-circumcision/
Gabriella said:- I think as religious people become more informed based on more widespread education, including medical information, they don't just rely on tradition as an answer to continue their practices.
True & good thing, its how we progress.
PS: I meant googling not goggling ::),i don't goggle!
-
I am so very glad I live in the UK and not across the pond, where many just follow the pack, it would appear.
-
I am so very glad I live in the UK and not across the pond, where many just follow the pack, it would appear.
... and on the most absurd and asinine of pretexts at that.
-
If it were the case that circumcising babies was best medical practice then surely it would be routine wherever medical practice was good: and that isn't the case. As far as I can see the main drivers for routinely circumcising babies are religion tradition or parental preference and not immediate medical need.
That those subscribing to a particular tradition say that the requirements of their tradition seem sound to them, or involves no real harm since they (in this case the men) have survived to tell the tale, surely involves the risks of post-hoc rationalisation and confirmation bias.
Not really - it's not that cut and dried. I think that medical practice is also influenced by culture, environment, funding and the issues that are prioritised as important in a particular region.
Yes there's a risk of post-hoc rationalisation and confirmation bias. It could be that if it is an effective strategy people are willing to acccept that risk of post-hoc rationalisation and confirmation bias until better strategies are shown to have widespread take-up and work.
-
Not really - it's not that cut and dried. I think that medical practice is also influenced by culture, environment, funding and the issues that are prioritised as important in a particular region.
Yes there's a risk of post-hoc rationalisation and confirmation bias. It could be that if it is an effective strategy people are willing to acccept that risk of post-hoc rationalisation and confirmation bias until better strategies are shown to have widespread take-up and work.
So it's not the best medical practice then.
-
There is a wider issue here where if we do allow mutilation in this case because of cultural and religious ideals then it creates an argument for it in other cases.
-
So it's not the best medical practice then.
Depends on people's views of the public health issues in the region. Some of the factors affecting those views are the economic pros and cons and effectiveness of circumcision vs other strategies to combat those public health issues.
-
There is a wider issue here where if we do allow mutilation in this case because of cultural and religious ideals then it creates an argument for it in other cases.
Yes it does and possibly with more justification, like castrating all male paedophiles, and sterilising women who have abused their children in a terrible way.
-
Not really - it's not that cut and dried. I think that medical practice is also influenced by culture, environment, funding and the issues that are prioritised as important in a particular region.
Yes there's a risk of post-hoc rationalisation and confirmation bias. It could be that if it is an effective strategy people are willing to acccept that risk of post-hoc rationalisation and confirmation bias until better strategies are shown to have widespread take-up and work.
Which misses the point: if there aren't specific medical reasons for routinely circumcising babies, as opposed to specific cases when there are medical grounds, then citing medical reasons that don't apply to the situation involving babies is utterly irrelevant.
Sounds to me like a tactic that would be adopted by those desperate to justify their religious tradition even where this involves mutilating their children.
-
Which misses the point: if there aren't specific medical reasons for routinely circumcising babies, as opposed to specific cases when there are medical grounds, then citing medical reasons that don't apply to the situation involving babies is utterly irrelevant.
Just repeating myself here - if it's a public health issue such as HIV and take-up rates and risks with the procedure are lower if routinely done as babies - it 's an argument for routinely circumcising babies where circumcision is shown to be effective in controlling HIV rates.
Sounds to me like a tactic that would be adopted by those desperate to justify their religious tradition even where this involves mutilating their children.
Ok - your opinion is noted.
-
Just repeating myself here - if it's a public health issue such as HIV and take-up rates and risks with the procedure are lower if routinely done as babies - it 's an argument for routinely circumcising babies where circumcision is shown to be effective in controlling HIV rates.
Where is the evidence for that?
If that were the case then surely circumcising babies would be recommended medical good practice as part of wider health strategies, and I'm not aware it is here in the UK.
-
There is one other factor influencing the rate of circumcision in the USA which I don't think has been mentioned. And this is profoundly affected by culture.
It is a nice little earner.
Of course American clinicians would enthuse about the health benefits of mutilating little boys - the practice pays for their holidays (or whatever).
-
Good point HH, i s'pose those born in hospital have the procedure added on to the bill.
Same here for those who pay a surgeon privately for their sons to be circumcised, which many do.
-
Where is the evidence for that?
For what? The evidence for the WHO to promote circumcision in certain parts of the world as an HIV prevention / control strategy is in their report that BeRational rubbished by claiming they had been got at. The evidence that there are lower risks of complication and less cost involved if circumcision is done as a baby rather than an adult is also from their report.
If that were the case then surely circumcising babies would be recommended medical good practice as part of wider health strategies, and I'm not aware it is here in the UK.
I would think that depends on if the same public health issues and circumstances exist in the UK as the WHO is attempting to address in the report that BeRational rubbished.
In the UK we have universal access to a free health service so STDs and HIV can be treated using public funds therefore there are other effective strategies to address such public health issues as well as cultural reasons that make routine circumcision for infants not a high priority.
Also free health care means any pain medication or complications that occur from elective circumcision of teenagers or adults with their informed consent can be addressed. And there is more disposable income in the UK for individuals to pay for teenage or adult circumcision services.
In other parts of the world where public funds or personal income are severely limited, parents may make different decisions.
-
This is information I found about the WHO's stance on the subject
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
-
For what? The evidence for the WHO to promote circumcision in certain parts of the world as an HIV prevention / control strategy is in their report that BeRational rubbished by claiming they had been got at. The evidence that there are lower risks of complication and less cost involved if circumcision is done as a baby rather than an adult is also from their report.
Does the WHO report advocate the circumcision of babies or adults/young adults?
I would think that depends on if the same public health issues and circumstances exist in the UK as the WHO is attempting to address in the report that BeRational rubbished.
In the UK we have universal access to a free health service so STDs and HIV can be treated using public funds therefore there are other effective strategies to address such public health issues as well as cultural reasons that make routine circumcision for infants not a high priority.
Also free health care means any pain medication or complications that occur from elective circumcision of teenagers or adults with their informed consent can be addressed. And there is more disposable income in the UK for individuals to pay for teenage or adult circumcision services.
In other parts of the world where public funds or personal income are severely limited, parents may make different decisions.
In that case there should be evidence that, say, affluent Jewish families would elect not to circumcise and allow their boys to decide for themselves at a later date: anecdotally at least my impression is that compliance with tradition is probably the main driver.
-
This is information I found about the WHO's stance on the subject
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
While the medical case is no doubt correct, as far as I can see the targeted group are sexually active (or potentially active) males who are in a position to give informed consent and assent to the health improvement/disease control argument (as opposed to a religious one).
This is very different from circumcising newborns so as to comply with tradition.
-
Does the WHO report advocate the circumcision of babies or adults/young adults?
Not that I know of. As I indicated in my initial response to Berational's opinion of the WHO report, the WHO report provides information for policy makers that parents can use as part of making an informed decision about whether to circumcise their infant son. The report looks at circumcision at different ages, states the advantages of circumcision of babies, looks at the various reasons for circumcision including HIV prevention and the report's conclusions are right there on Page 55 and 56, ending with:
"Neonatal and child circumcision is routinely practised in many countries for religious, cultural or medical reasons. The procedure is undertaken by a range of providers, with the choice of provider depending on family or religious tradition, cost, availability and perception
of service quality. As a traditional religious and cultural practice, circumcision is likely to continue to be highly prevalent around the world, and, in addition, is now being considered for HIV prevention. Every effort must be made to ensure that the procedure is undertaken as
safely as possible, by trained and experienced providers with adequate supplies and in hygienic conditions."
In that case there should be evidence that, say, affluent Jewish families would elect not to circumcise and allow their boys to decide for themselves at a later date: anecdotally at least my impression is that compliance with tradition is probably the main driver.
In certain parts of the Jewish community there is compliance with tradition and in other parts of the Jewish community there is no strict adherence to the tradition. Increasingly Jewish parents seem to feel they can dispense with some traditions, including the organisation set up in Israel to publicly oppose infant circumcision when done for purely religious or identity reasons.
-
Increasingly Jewish parents seem to feel they can dispense with some traditions, including the organisation set up in Israel to publicly oppose infant circumcision when done for purely religious or identity reasons.
That should be organisations, as there are quite a few of them - thank goodness. Better still, they're becoming increasingly effective: http://tinyurl.com/y8jagdp4
http://tinyurl.com/yarplzfb
-
Just saw this on the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-40358944
-
HH flagged that up on page one of this thread though your link might be update.
Sad to think that little boy has inflammation and urinary problems because of the circumcision when it 's often carried out to put that sort of thing right.
-
HH flagged that up on page one of this thread though your link might be update.
Sad to think that little boy has inflammation and urinary problems because of the circumcision when it 's often carried out to put that sort of thing right.
Yes, this is the update to the story
-
That a prosecution appears to be under way is a relief, but that it should be the result of intervention by a barrister is a great disappointment. The Nottingham police should have initiated a prosecution at the earliest opportunity.
Let us hope that prosecuting authorities will now be active where cases of female genital mutilation are discovered.
-
It should only be allowed if medically necessary, otherwise the supposed benefits are a myth.
So those who have not accepted Christ as the Messiah, as of yet, should disobey Gods commands?
We are not having to choose because we believe Christ is the Messiah.
However Jews will go on circumcising till they come to Christ. Some Jews have come to Christ.
We have to stay out of that one.
-
Sass: Would you feel the same if the circuncision was carried out by some other faith practice? Because certain religions in Africa - and a few native tribes in Central/South America also carry out the practice - and their native religions have no contact with Judaism. (In the case of Africa, evidence of circumcision dates back at least five thousand years)
-
So those who have not accepted Christ as the Messiah, as of yet, should disobey Gods commands?
We are not having to choose because we believe Christ is the Messiah.
However Jews will go on circumcising till they come to Christ. Some Jews have come to Christ.
We have to stay out of that one.
Cutting off the foreskin of a baby boy for no better reason than a religious belief should be illegal, as it is WRONG! >:( If god commands it, god is WRONG! >:(
-
'My son was circumcised without my consent'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-40420511
-
'My son was circumcised without my consent'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-40420511
SHOCKING! :o
-
SHOCKING! :o
If you are referring to the responses from police, social services and Members of Parliament - you are dead right!
-
Mutilating a child in this way is always wrong, unless it is done for strict medical reasons
-
Mutilating a child in this way is always wrong, unless it is done for strict medical reasons
I don't think that anyone disputes this, Floo. What I find disturbing in this case is the reluctance of anyone with any authority to condemn male genital mutilation - I smell an unwillingness to offend cultural sensibilities.
-
I don't think that anyone disputes this, Floo. What I find disturbing in this case is the reluctance of anyone with any authority to condemn male genital mutilation - I smell an unwillingness to offend cultural sensibilities.
I agree people in authority should be speaking out against it, even if it offends cultural sensibilities.
-
I don't think that anyone disputes this, Floo. What I find disturbing in this case is the reluctance of anyone with any authority to condemn male genital mutilation - I smell an unwillingness to offend cultural sensibilities.
Probably because those in authority feel the same way I do about it.
IMO it was wrong in this reported case ( and against the law) as it requires the consent of both parents to be legal.
So on one hand the authorities need to support her, in that what was done to her son was illegal, without other people forcing the authorities to support the agenda of making the whole issue of making male circumcision illegal.
There are two issues here:
One the baby was circumcised without the mothers approval
Two, whether male circumcision of babies should be banned altogether.
I suspect the authorities disapprove of the first, but don't want to be dragged into other people's agenda of the second one.
Different issues.
I expect the authorities, smell an attempt to force their hand on a separate issue.
By extremists.
-
In what way us the mother attempting to force the authorities hand! Or being extremist?
-
In what way us the mother attempting too force the authorities hand! Or being extremist?
The mother isn't.
It's opinions like the ones on this message board I'm referring to.
-
The mother isn't.
It's opinions like the ones on this message board I'm referring to.
Then what reason is there for the lack of action by the authorities?
-
If this case comes to trial then it will equal the number of cases that have gone to trial for FGM in the U.K. One. And FGM has been illegal for thirty years.
-
If this case comes to trial then it will equal the number of cases that have gone to trial for FGM in the U.K. One. And FGM has been illegal for thirty years.
It's not comparable.
The problems of getting convictions isn't comparable either, it's a totally different issue.
So comparing the two, is irrelevant.
-
How are they not comparable?
-
How are they not comparable?
I've put a link much earlier in the thread that explains why it's different.
So let's not go around in another circle.
If you want to know and discuss why FGM has been illegal for 30 years and there have been no convictions/prosecutions you need another thread to explore that, because the circumstances are very different to male circumcision.
Male circumcision isn't illegal if both parents agree, and the reasons there are no prosecutions is self evident.
-
I've put a link much earlier in the thread that explains why it's different.
So let's not go around in another circle. Please explain, briefly, why they're not comparable.
No, that's not good enough. Please explain, briefly, why they're not comparable.
-
It's not comparable.
The problems of getting convictions isn't comparable either, it's a totally different issue.
So comparing the two, is irrelevant.
Of course they are comparable. I agree with ad-o, you need to explain why they aren't.
-
No, that's not good enough. Please explain, briefly, why they're not comparable.
Because male circumcision involves removing a flap of skin that medical authorities ( like the WHO ) consider doesn't adversely affect a man, has no long term effects on his life, and in their opinion has certain medical benefits.
FGM on the other hand, is considered very damaging to a women affecting things like her ability to wee without pain, menstruate, have a normal sexual relationship with a man, and her ability to give birth naturally and may even risk her life and that of the baby.
That's briefly.
-
Because male circumcision involves removing a flap of skin that medical authorities ( like the WHO ) consider doesn't adversely affect a man and in their opinion has certain medical benefits.
FGM on the other hand, is considered very damaging to a women affecting things like her ability to wee without pain, menstruate, have a normal sexual relationship with a man, and her ability to give birth naturally and may even risk the her life and that of the baby.
That's briefly.
But in both cases the procedures were carried out in dodgy circumstances. One is illegal, the other was carried out without parental consent, also illegal with conspiracy by the grandparents, also illegal. Can you explain why two illegal procedures should result in prosecution for one and not the other?
-
Morally, they are equally comparable. I also posted a link earlier in the thread showing why the arguments in favour of male circumcision, including those of the WHO, are heavily biased. Anyway, I would have thought that the risk of infection, blood poisoning, and severe chaffing of the helmet were good enough reasons to make them comparable.
-
But in both cases the procedures were carried out in dodgy circumstances. One is illegal, the other was carried out without parental consent, also illegal with conspiracy by the grandparents, also illegal. Can you explain why two illegal procedures should result in prosecution for one and not the other?
No. Both of these should be prosecuted because both of them are illegal.
-
Morally, they are equally comparable. I also posted a link earlier in the thread showing why the arguments in favour of male circumcision, including those of the WHO, are heavily biased. Anyway, I would have thought that the risk of infection, blood poisoning, and severe chaffing of the helmet were good enough reasons to make them comparable.
For me the thing that makes them comparable morally is that they are carried out on infants incapable of giving consent. And as you say, all medical procedures carry both short and long term risk. Unless essential circumcision should be a matter of choice for adults to make.
-
Morally, they are equally comparable. I also posted a link earlier in the thread showing why the arguments in favour of male circumcision, including those of the WHO, are heavily biased. Anyway, I would have thought that the risk of infection, blood poisoning, and severe chaffing of the helmet were good enough reasons to make them comparable.
Nope, because the risks aren't comparable and most male circumcisions are performed by someone who is qualified with the proper hygiene in place.
Most FGMs seem to be done with a razor by some family member somewhere in Africa.
-
No. Both of these should be prosecuted because both of them are illegal.
So why did you say I shouldn't compare them? My post was comparing the number of prosecutions, not the nature of FGM v MGM. I agree with ad-o that MGM is wrong when carried out on infants, but that wasn't what my post was about.
-
Nope, because the risks aren't comparable and most male circumcisions are performed by someone who is qualified with the proper hygiene in place.
Most FGMs seem to be done with a razor by some family member somewhere in Africa.
But there are still risks, unnecessary ones, that can cause lifelong damage and pain.
My first partner was circumcised and he was teased about it in the showers at school. It caused him both mental and physical problems. Something that was totally unnecessary and avoidable.
-
But there are still risks, unnecessary ones, that can cause lifelong damage and pain.
My first partner was circumcised and he was teased about it in the showers at school. It caused him both mental and physical problems. Something that was totally unnecessary and avoidable.
The school should have dealt with that, some boys are circumcised because of medical reasons and being teased isn't acceptable, whatever the reason it's done.
-
The school should have dealt with that, some boys are circumcised because of medical reasons and being teased isn't acceptable, whatever the reason it's done.
Nobody on this thread objects to circumcision carried out for legitimate medical reasons.
Paying attention to all the posts in the thread would have apprised you of this some considerable time ago.
-
The school should have dealt with that, some boys are circumcised because of medical reasons and being teased isn't acceptable, whatever the reason it's done.
Where it is done for medical reasons this will be on a case-by-case basis on the basis of each specific medical need.
However, and since circumcision isn't routine 'best practice' following the birth of boys here in the UK, then 'medical reasons' fails as a defence for mutilating babies since, otherwise, most males in the UK would be circumcised soon after birth, and this isn't the case.
So, this barbarism is primarily a consequence of adherence to religious/cultural superstitions and has no place in an allegedly civilised society.
-
Where it is done for medical reasons this will be on a case-by-case basis on the basis of each specific medical need.
However, and since circumcision isn't routine 'best practice' following the birth of boys here in the UK, then 'medical reasons' fails as a defence for mutilating babies since, otherwise, most males in the UK would be circumcised soon after birth, and this isn't the case.
So, this barbarism is primarily a consequence of adherence to religious/cultural superstitions and has no place in an allegedly civilised society.
That about tops it for me.
-
Nobody on this thread objects to circumcision carried out for legitimate medical reasons.
Paying attention to all the posts in the thread would have apprised you of this some considerable time ago.
I had noted it, but my point was no child should be teased about it in school.
-
I had noted it, but my point was no child should be teased about it in school.
Easily sorted: ensure that bits of baby boys aren't routinely removed unless there are immediate and compelling medical reasons.
-
Where it is done for medical reasons this will be on a case-by-case basis on the basis of each specific medical need.
However, and since circumcision isn't routine 'best practice' following the birth of boys here in the UK, then 'medical reasons' fails as a defence for mutilating babies since, otherwise, most males in the UK would be circumcised soon after birth, and this isn't the case.
So, this barbarism is primarily a consequence of adherence to religious/cultural superstitions and has no place in an allegedly civilised society.
That's the problem Gordon, you think people practicing their religion is barbaric and there is no place for them in your sort of "so called" civilised society.
Well society is made up of all sorts of people.
Tolerance in diversity is learning to live with people that are different to yourself with out judging them as barbaric.
They are not, just different.
-
Easily sorted: ensure that bits of baby boys aren't routinely removed unless there are immediate and compelling medical reasons.
No.
It's a religious requirement for some groups, medical evidence shows it isn't harmful.
What needs to happen, is that you need to accept diversity, become more tolerant of the ways of others and stop insulting them by calling them barbaric because they won't conform to the things that are important to you.
We share society with a range of different people, with different ideas of what is important.
Tolerance is accepting this, within the law.
-
No.
It's a religious requirement for some groups
Which is no reason at all for sane people.
What needs to happen, is that you need to accept diversity, become more tolerant of the ways of others and stop insulting them by calling them barbaric because they won't conform to the things that are important to you.
What's important to me is not sucking up to the irrational barbarism of barbarians and calling it diversity and tolerance.
-
That's the problem Gordon, you think people practicing their religion is barbaric and there is no place for them in your sort of "so called" civilised society.
Well society is made up of all sorts of people.
Tolerance in diversity is learning to live with people that are different to yourself with out judging them as barbaric.
They are not, just different.
If their religious traditions involve mutilating babies then I say let's be intolerant of these barbaric traditions.
-
Which is no reason at all for sane people.
What's important to me is not sucking up to the irrational barbarism of barbarians and calling it diversity.
So now they are not sane as well as barbaric? Any more intolerant insults?
The problem appears to be you and some others here are intolerant of difference and other people's right to decide what matters to them, and to be represented.
You are starting to sound like a bigot!
-
If their religious traditions involve mutilating babies then I say let's be intolerant of these barbaric traditions.
Well you'll be glad to hear it doesn't
It just involves removing a flap of skin from boys which the medical authorities have decided doesn't cause harm to them.
-
No.
It's a religious requirement for some groups, medical evidence shows it isn't harmful.
What needs to happen, is that you need to accept diversity, become more tolerant of the ways of others and stop insulting them by calling them barbaric because they won't conform to the things that are important to you.
We share society with a range of different people, with different ideas of what is important.
Tolerance is accepting this, within the law.
When it is done on the basis of religious tradition then any medical argument is irrelevant, since if it was a valid argument there would be compelling medical reasons for routinely circumcising most baby boys - and that simply isn't the case.
As I just said, we need to be intolerant of this 'tradition' and put a stop to it.
-
Well you'll be glad to hear it doesn't
It just involves removing a flap of skin from boys which the medical authorities have decided doesn't cause harm to them.
Except to those it does.
-
So now they are not sane as well as barbaric?
Correct.
Any more intolerant insults?
Plenty, if you want them. I'm happy to go as far as the house rules allow.
The problem appears to be you and some others here are intolerant of difference and other people's right to decide what matters to them, and to be represented.
I don't give a shit about difference where difference is foisted upon subjects without their informed consent.
You are starting to sound like a bigot!
I'm not starting to sound like one; I am one. I'm bigoted against any amount of things. Most people are.
-
Well you'll be glad to hear it doesn't
It just involves removing a flap of skin from boys which the medical authorities have decided doesn't cause harm to them.
The question surely is 'does it do harm for them not to be circumcised':and there you have a problem in that since only a minority of boys in the UK are circumcised, since circumcision isn't a routine procedure then, presumably, by your logic, these medical authorities are exposing baby boys to risk: and that doesn't fly at all.
You seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker into the fallacies of tradition and authority in your support of this barbarism.
-
You seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker into the fallacies of tradition and authority in your support of this barbarism.
Yup.
-
It just involves removing a flap of skin from boys which the medical authorities have decided doesn't cause harm to them.
Please tell me which "medical authorities" argue that the most highly innervated tissue in the male sexual organs can be routinely removed without causing harm. It is your anatomical and physiological ignorance that categorises the prepuce as "a flap of skin".
In the majority of men in the UK born in the first half of the 20th century, the prepuce was removed by the midwife just a couple of days after birth because it was the fashion. No doctors were involved. It was not for any clinical reason.
-
Please tell me which "medical authorities" argue that the most highly innervated tissue in the male sexual organs can be routinely removed without causing harm. It is your anatomical and physiological ignorance that categorises the prepuce as "a flap of skin".
In the majority of men in the UK born in the first half of the 20th century, the prepuce was removed by the midwife just a couple of days after birth because it was the fashion. No doctors were involved. It was not for any clinical reason.
The world health organisation
-
The world health organisation
So, does the WHO recommend the routine circumcision of newborns?
-
So why the hell are we born WITH this so-called tiny piece of skin if it can be so easily thrown away ?!?!!?
-
If their religious traditions involve mutilating babies then I say let's be intolerant of these barbaric traditions.
I agree.
-
Rose,
Why don't you go to http://www.norm.org/lost.html and spend a little time reading it? It shouldn't take you long, after all, it's only about a little flap of skin.
-
So, does the WHO recommend the routine circumcision of newborns?
The WHO are not speaking out against the practice either and advocate circumcision of adults as one aspect of their approach to controlling the spread of HIV in heterosexuals. So it appears the harm caused by circumcision is an acceptable level of harm if it prevents a greater harm.
The issue therefore seems to be about consent rather than whether circumcision causing an unacceptable level of harm to the patient.
Also, provided it is done correctly by a trained person the WHO's position is that the level of harm can be tolerated better with lower risks in an infant compared to as a teenager or adult - hence it becomes the parents' decision as to whether it is a procedure that should be undertaken as an infant when there are minimal risks, compared to leaving it up to a potentially sexually-active teenager to consent when the pain and risk of infection is greater and the healing process is longer.
As stated previously, there are various cultural religious practices that also had some basis in medical experience/ knowledge at the time they started being practised. And tying circumcision with religious cultural practice would ensure a reason for the practice to continue. If people found mental / physical health benefits from prayer and meditation or fasting they would tie those practices into religion/ culture to try to spread the practice of it. Same with circumcision.
When there is expert consensus that circumcision does not control the spread of HIV in heterosexuals or when there is easy availability of anti-HIV and STD drugs throughout the world a lot of communities will no doubt think the cost/ risks of circumcision outweighs the benefit and the cultural practice will probably greatly reduce.
-
It is fine if an adult male decides to be circumcised, it definitely not ok to circumcise a child if it isn't medically necessary.
-
The WHO are not speaking out against the practice either and advocate circumcision of adults as one aspect of their approach to controlling the spread of HIV in heterosexuals. So it appears the harm caused by circumcision is an acceptable level of harm if it prevents a greater harm.
The issue therefore seems to be about consent rather than whether circumcision causing an unacceptable level of harm to the patient.
Also, provided it is done correctly by a trained person the WHO's position is that the level of harm can be tolerated better with lower risks in an infant compared to as a teenager or adult - hence it becomes the parents' decision as to whether it is a procedure that should be undertaken as an infant when there are minimal risks, compared to leaving it up to a potentially sexually-active teenager to consent when the pain and risk of infection is greater and the healing process is longer.
As stated previously, there are various cultural religious practices that also had some basis in medical experience/ knowledge at the time they started being practised. And tying circumcision with religious cultural practice would ensure a reason for the practice to continue. If people found mental / physical health benefits from prayer and meditation or fasting they would tie those practices into religion/ culture to try to spread the practice of it. Same with circumcision.
When there is expert consensus that circumcision does not control the spread of HIV in heterosexuals or when there is easy availability of anti-HIV and STD drugs throughout the world a lot of communities will no doubt think the cost/ risks of circumcision outweighs the benefit and the cultural practice will probably greatly reduce.
Why then, if the benefits of circumcising newborns so as to manage HIV when these newborns become sexually active many years hence, is the routine circumcision of newborns not considered best practice here in the UK currently? My impression is that while this medical argument might apply to teenage males, who would then be in a position to give informed consent, it doesn't address the problem that newborns are being mutilated before they ate capable of giving informed consent.
A cynic might consider that the 'medical' justification is being used as a smokescreen to justify the mutilation of newborns on the basis of religious/cultural traditions.
-
Why then, if the benefits of circumcising newborns so as to manage HIV when these newborns become sexually active many years hence, is the routine circumcision of newborns not considered best practice here in the UK currently? My impression is that while this medical argument might apply to teenage males, who would then be in a position to give informed consent, it doesn't address the problem that newborns are being mutilated before they ate capable of giving informed consent.
A cynic might consider that the 'medical' justification is being used as a smokescreen to justify the mutilation of newborns on the basis of religious/cultural traditions.
Fairly obvious why circumcision is considered a valid option by the WHO in a developing country with limited healthcare infrastructure and health workers, no free welfare state and limited access to HIV clinics and expensive anti-HIV drugs but is not considered best practice for those who are certain they will remain in a first world country for the rest of their lives with a welfare state and access to free health care or health insurance and numerous HIV clinics and anti-HIV drugs.
It took about 20 years longer for ARV drugs to become more widely available in Africa compared to Western countries because drug companies had patents that allowed them to recoup their R&D costs by keeping the ARV prices high and unaffordable for African countries for about 20 years.
One WHO study in Uganda reported that there was an increased risk of infecting female partners with HIV if sexual activity happened too soon after the circumcision of HIV infected men, and that the risk of infecting partners through sexual activity was reduced if the circumcision had already happened in childhood.
A cynic might think the "why doesn't it happen in the UK" argument is just a deliberately obtuse smokescreen to justify ignoring WHO research and findings because those findings happen to support certain religious practices.
-
I think that the role of circumcision in the control of AIDS is a red herring. If for no other reason than the clinical treatment of HIV infection has reached the stage where it can be managed to the extent that people with the condition can lead relatively normal lives into old age. The idea that infants should be routinely mutilated just in case, as adults, they may be exposed to HIV is risible.
I suspect that "medical" arguments in favour of routine infant mutilation come from clinicians in the USA, where for reasons already outlined, it is still inflicted on a large number of baby boys, and the proponents are quite likely to have been circumcised themselves.
-
I think that the role of circumcision in the control of AIDS is a red herring. If for no other reason than the clinical treatment of HIV infection has reached the stage where it can be managed to the extent that people with the condition can lead relatively normal lives into old age. The idea that infants should be routinely mutilated just in case, as adults, they may be exposed to HIV is risible.
the WHO seem to disagree with you about the red herring part especially in countries that lack the infrastructure to allow easy access to drugs in remote areas. Clearly mutilation is not risible in cultures where infant circumcision is not likely to die out any time soon because they think the benefit outweighs the harm of the mutilation.
I suspect that "medical" arguments in favour of routine infant mutilation come from clinicians in the USA, where for reasons already outlined, it is still inflicted on a large number of baby boys, and the proponents are quite likely to have been circumcised themselves.
That's one view. There are others.
-
Fairly obvious why circumcision is considered a valid option by the WHO in a developing country with limited healthcare infrastructure and health workers, no free welfare state and limited access to HIV clinics and expensive anti-HIV drugs but is not considered best practice for those who are certain they will remain in a first world country for the rest of their lives with a welfare state and access to free health care or health insurance and numerous HIV clinics and anti-HIV drugs.
It took about 20 years longer for ARV drugs to become more widely available in Africa compared to Western countries because drug companies had patents that allowed them to recoup their R&D costs by keeping the ARV prices high and unaffordable for African countries for about 20 years.
One WHO study in Uganda reported that there was an increased risk of infecting female partners with HIV if sexual activity happened too soon after the circumcision of HIV infected men, and that the risk of infecting partners through sexual activity was reduced if the circumcision had already happened in childhood.
A cynic might think the "why doesn't it happen in the UK" argument is just a deliberately obtuse smokescreen to justify ignoring WHO research and findings because those findings happen to support certain religious practices.
None of which addresses the simple fact that the routine circumcision of newborns is not recommended medical 'best practice': therefore, in cases where there is no immediate medical need the mutilation of newborns seems to be primarily due to religious/cultural traditions.
-
None of which addresses the simple fact that the routine circumcision of newborns is not recommended medical 'best practice': therefore, in cases where there is no immediate medical need the mutilation of newborns seems to be primarily due to religious/cultural traditions.
Ok but this doesn't address the simple fact that it is not medically discouraged so long as it is done safely - which may be because certain health experts think it serves a useful purpose in controlling the spread of HIV in certain parts of the world with poor health infrastructure because there are less men to circumcise as adults, which carries higher risks and more complications and longer time to heal than if done as an infant.
-
Ok but this doesn't address the simple fact that it is not medically discouraged so long as it is done safely - which may be because certain health experts think it serves a useful purpose in controlling the spread of HIV in certain parts of the world with poor health infrastructure because there are less men to circumcise as adults, which carries higher risks and more complications and longer time to heal than if done as an infant.
Which seems like a classic case of using people (in this case newborns) as a means to an end.
-
Which seems like a classic case of using people (in this case newborns) as a means to an end.
No it's not! You are twisting what is being said.
-
Which seems like a classic case of using people (in this case newborns) as a means to an end.
I wonder how many men would chose (i.e. consent) to being circumcised when they are old enough actually to decide for themselves.
I suspect not many.
-
No it's not! You are twisting what is being said.
No I'm not: if, as has been suggested, mutilating babies is part of a long-term strategy to manage HIV then it is using these newborns as a means to an end. Of course if mutilating babies is being done in order the preserve barbaric religious/cultural traditions then this is still using these newborns as a means to an end: albeit a different end.
-
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/hiv-aids/circumcision-and-vaccines-twins-separated-birth
So maybe we shouldn't vaccinate babies either? After all they can't consent and there is a small risk with a vaccination ( probably a bigger one)
Both are considered beneficial, both have people who don't agree with it.
Same ethical arguments, the baby can't consent. Autism etc.
Oh! Vaccines don't involve religion, that's it then, the deciding factor isn't the ethical argument.
-
I saw this....
"The health benefits of male circumcision 'outweigh the risks 100 to one'
Half of uncircumcised men develop a health problem as a result, it is claimed
It would be 'unethical' not to offer it to the parents of all baby boys, the researchers state"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2595307/Circumcision-offered-like-vaccines-parents-baby-boys-study-claims.html#ixzz4lW1URVSA
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2595307/Circumcision-offered-like-vaccines-parents-baby-boys-study-claims.html
😉
( Gabriella, bet they criticise the source 😂 Instead of engaging with the argument )
-
The argument is that health reasons, based on heavily biased arguments including those of the WHO, are being used to maintain are barbaric cultural practice.
-
The argument is that health reasons, based on heavily biased arguments including those of the WHO, are being used to maintain are barbaric cultural practice.
See link above.
It's not just the WHO, and your evidence that they are biased?
I expect anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is biased, even those who have done research.
-
It says
"He added: ‘The new findings now show that infant circumcision should be regarded as equivalent to childhood vaccination and that as such it would be unethical not to routinely offer parents circumcision for their baby boy.
‘Delay puts the child's health at risk and will usually mean it will never happen.’
He said in infancy, the strongest immediate benefit is protection against urinary tract infections (UTIs) that can damage the kidneys.
Professor Morris and co-investigator Dr Tom Wiswell, of the Centre for Neonatal Care in Orlando, Florida, showed last year that over the lifetime, UTIs affect one in three uncircumcised males.
Professor Morris, with Dr John Krieger, of the Department of Urology at the University of Washington in Seattle, showed that there is no adverse effect of circumcision on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure.
This helped dispel one myth perpetuated by opponents of the procedure.
Prof Morris added: ‘Taken together, the new findings should send a strong message to medical practitioners, professional bodies, educators, policy makers, governments, and insurers to promote this safe, simple procedure, best done in infancy under local anaesthesia and to increase access and third party coverage, especially for poor families, who tend to suffer most from foreskin-related diseases.
‘Infant circumcision has, moreover, been shown to be cost saving.’ "
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2595307/Circumcision-offered-like-vaccines-parents-baby-boys-study-claims.html#ixzz4lW2rb9ol
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/hiv-aids/circumcision-and-vaccines-twins-separated-birth
So maybe we shouldn't vaccinate babies either? After all they can't consent and there is a small risk with a vaccination ( probably a bigger one)
Both are considered beneficial, both have people who don't agree with it.
Same ethical arguments, the baby can't consent. Autism etc.
Oh! Vaccines don't involve religion, that's it then, the deciding factor, not the ethical argument.
The vast majority of circumcisions are performed for religious reasons, not health reasons. As far as I am aware no-one decides to vaccinate for religious reasons.
And the point about vaccination is that the benefits (and not just for the child vaccinated) massively outweigh any downsides (e.g. side effects) even if there are any. Under those circumstances it is reasonable to suggest that parents may choose to vaccinate when the child cannot consent as it is in the child's best interests.
The same cannot be said for circumcision where the purported benefits are dubious in the extreme and the harm obvious. And parents are, in the vast majority of case, circumcising not due to this being in the child's best interests on health grounds (which would be extremely hard to justify) but for cultural, usually religious, reasons.
-
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/hiv-aids/circumcision-and-vaccines-twins-separated-birth
So maybe we shouldn't vaccinate babies either? After all they can't consent and there is a small risk with a vaccination ( probably a bigger one)
Both are considered beneficial, both have people who don't agree with it.
Same ethical arguments, the baby can't consent. Autism etc.
Oh! Vaccines don't involve religion, that's it then, the deciding factor, not the ethical argument.
Vaccines aren't administered in order to comply with religious or cultural tradition, so not quite the same thing.
Moreover vaccines offer specific tailored protection to the individual from known health risks, which has seen the eradication of the likes smallpox and polio: no chopping of of bits of baby are boys involved and, of course, girls get vaccinated too.
-
Here is why it isn't recommended to wait until the boy can give consent.
" Why Medical Bodies and Others Should Not Advise That Circumcision Should be Delayed Until the Boy Can Make the Decision for Himself
Summary:
WHY CIRCUMCISION SHOULD NOT BE DELAYED
• Protection against UTIs and kidney damage in infancy is lost.
• Freedom from phimosis and balanitis in childhood and at puberty is lost.
• Circumcision after boys become sexually active means loss of more benefits associated with STI prevention.
• The risk of complications is higher for later circumcisions.
• The cost (to the individual or the public purse) is much higher.
• Educational resources for boys to make an informed decision are lacking
• Large-scale adolescent circumcision would strain medical resources.
• Boys who choose circumcision will certainly wish it had been done in infancy.
• Many boys will not want to face an operation even though they wish to be circumcised.
• Major international and American health and medical organizations are now urging circumcision, especially in infancy.
http://www.circinfo.net/circumcision_why_you_should_not_delay.html
So if Jews and Muslims want to have their baby boys circumcised in hygienic conditions, why on earth would I object?
As long as it's not forced on the whole population and we are free to decline, why should I interfere with someone else's choice?
It's THEIR choice.
-
Vaccines aren't administered in order to comply with religious or cultural tradition, so not quite the same thing.
Moreover vaccines offer specific tailored protection to the individual from known health risks, which has seen the eradication of the likes smallpox and polio: no chopping of of bits of baby are boys involved and, of course, girls get vaccinated too.
Your opinion is driven by your prejudice against religion Gordon.
As far as I can see with male circumcision there are benefits and I am more than happy to leave such decisions to the parents of the baby boys concerned.
I'm not objecting to it, because they belong to a religion, that's the bottom line. It doesn't matter if they belong to a religion, what matters is the research.
It's a balance between what parents think is important for their son, weighed against the negatives it's only a choice parents can make.
You obviously think religion is barbaric, because that's how you describe it, that's your prejudice.
The ethical thing to do, given that there is much in favour health wise of doing it, is to allow others to follow their own conscience on the matter.
Not to describe people's religions as barbaric and try and force your own opinion on them.
-
He said in infancy, the strongest immediate benefit is protection against urinary tract infections (UTIs) that can damage the kidneys.
Professor Morris and co-investigator Dr Tom Wiswell, of the Centre for Neonatal Care in Orlando, Florida, showed last year that over the lifetime, UTIs affect one in three uncircumcised males.
Complete non-sense.
So circumcision might reduce incidence of UIT.
But it might not. So you remove a key part of the male genitals on the basis that a child might get a UTI - but then they might not Even in his view two thirds won't gat a UTI over their lifetime. And even if they did UTI's are readily treatable with antibiotics and in all but the most extreme cases UTIs are annoying but completely treatable and do not result in lasting damage.
You might just as well argue for precautionary mastectomy for all girls as 1 in 8 women are diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime, and breast cancer, unlike a UTI, is a very serious condition.
-
As far as I can see with male circumcision there are benefits and I am more than happy to leave such decisions to the parents of the baby boys concerned.
Why not leave it to the child themselves to make the decision when they are old enough. There is no imperative (except religious and cultural norms) for infant circumcision, so leave it to the boy to decide whether or not he'd like his penis to remain intact.
-
Complete non-sense.
So circumcision might reduce incidence of UIT.
But it might not. So you remove a key part of the male genitals on the basis that a child might get a UTI - but then they might not Even in his view two thirds won't gat a UTI over their lifetime. And even if they did UTI's are readily treatable with antibiotics and in all but the most extreme cases UTIs are annoying but completely treatable and do not result in lasting damage.
You might just as well argue for precautionary mastectomy for all girls as 1 in 8 women are diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime, and breast cancer, unlike a UTI, is a very serious condition.
It's hardly a key part....... lol
-
Why not leave it to the child themselves to make the decision when they are old enough. There is no imperative (except religious and cultural norms) for infant circumcision, so leave it to the boy to decide whether or not he'd like his penis to remain intact.
I've already posted an answer to that.
-
Supporters of this fatuous and ignorant abomination witter on about everybody's choice ... everybody that is except the choice of the subject directly and immediately involved in having it forced upon them without their informed consent.
A truly warped set of priorities some people have.
-
Complete non-sense.
So circumcision might reduce incidence of UIT.
But it might not. So you remove a key part of the male genitals on the basis that a child might get a UTI - but then they might not Even in his view two thirds won't gat a UTI over their lifetime. And even if they did UTI's are readily treatable with antibiotics and in all but the most extreme cases UTIs are annoying but completely treatable and do not result in lasting damage.
You might just as well argue for precautionary mastectomy for all girls as 1 in 8 women are diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime, and breast cancer, unlike a UTI, is a very serious condition.
It doesn't say might, not in the clip you have provided.
-
It's hardly a key part....... lol
Not being funny, but I don't think you are in any position to judge.
I think any man (uncircumcised) will recognise it is a key component for sexual pleasure.
-
It doesn't say might, not in the clip you have provided.
It says just one in three men get a UTI over a lifetime, two in three don't - so I think might is entirely the right word.
-
Your opinion is driven by your prejudice against religion Gordon.
As far as I can see with male circumcision there are benefits and I am more than happy to leave such decisions to the parents of the baby boys concerned.
I'm not objecting to it, because they belong to a religion, that's the bottom line. It doesn't matter if they belong to a religion, what matters is the research.
It's a balance between what parents think is important for their son, weighed against the negatives it's only a choice parents can make.
You obviously think religion is barbaric, because that's how you describe it, that's your prejudice.
The ethical thing to do, given that there is much in favour health wise of doing it, is to allow others to follow their own conscience on the matter.
Not to describe people's religions as barbaric and try and force your own opinion on them.
If this research is so strong then you'll need to explain why circumcision isn't routinely carried out here in the UK: after all, we'd like to think the UK is well advanced in terms of medical practice so surely that circumcision isn't routine implies our paediatric care is lacking compared with, say, the US where they are happy to chop bits off of a sizeable proportion of their baby boys at the drop of something sharp (followed by a drop of something red).
Surprised that you've become an apologist for barbarism.
-
It's THEIR choice.
It demonstrably isn't THEIR choice - thats the whole point. No infant being circumcised chooses to do so.
-
So maybe we shouldn't vaccinate babies either? After all they can't consent and there is a small risk with a vaccination ( probably a bigger one)
Both are considered beneficial, both have people who don't agree with it.
Same ethical arguments, the baby can't consent. Autism etc.
Goodness only knows where you dredge up your so-called evidence from but you seem unaware (not to my surprise) that there is absolutely zero reputable scientific evidence of any link between vaccination and autism. Ever heard of Andrew Wakefield?
-
See link above.
It's not just the WHO, and your evidence that they are biased?
I expect anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is biased, even those who have done research.
I posted the link earlier in the thread. Here it is again: http://circumcision.org/bias.htm
-
Supporters of this fatuous and ignorant abomination witter on about everybody's choice ... everybody that is except the choice of the subject directly and immediately involved in having it forced upon them without their informed consent.
A truly warped set of priorities some people have.
Not as warped as the intolerant one, who uses any excuse to have a dig at religious people, while hiding behind double standards.
It's just an excuse for prejudiced people to have a dig at Jews/Muslims/or other ethnic/religious group without getting called out for discrimination.
But that's what it is.
Babies are given injections or any other non religious procedures without their informed consent, but that's ok because it doesn't feed people's religious prejudices.
I'm not convinced any of you are really interested in the actual babies, if you were, you would look at the research for it, and recognise that this matter has to be decided by the ones who love the baby the most, the parents with the advice of their doctors.
It isn't even something I chose for my own sons, that was our choice , but I recognise people with an anti religious agenda, and that's what I see here.
People who are biased.
-
Here is why it isn't recommended to wait until the boy can give consent.
" Why Medical Bodies and Others Should Not Advise That Circumcision Should be Delayed Until the Boy Can Make the Decision for Himself
Summary:
WHY CIRCUMCISION SHOULD NOT BE DELAYED
• Protection against UTIs and kidney damage in infancy is lost.
• Freedom from phimosis and balanitis in childhood and at puberty is lost.
• Circumcision after boys become sexually active means loss of more benefits associated with STI prevention.
• The risk of complications is higher for later circumcisions.
• The cost (to the individual or the public purse) is much higher.
• Educational resources for boys to make an informed decision are lacking
• Large-scale adolescent circumcision would strain medical resources.
• Boys who choose circumcision will certainly wish it had been done in infancy.
• Many boys will not want to face an operation even though they wish to be circumcised.
• Major international and American health and medical organizations are now urging circumcision, especially in infancy.
http://www.circinfo.net/circumcision_why_you_should_not_delay.html
So if Jews and Muslims want to have their baby boys circumcised in hygienic conditions, why on earth would I object?
As long as it's not forced on the whole population and we are free to decline, why should I interfere with someone else's choice?
It's THEIR choice.
Perhaps next time you cite a source you should check the that the author really is an expert: it seems that this chap has his critics (inc. genuine experts). That this attracted the Daily Wail (that you linked to earlier) is no great surprise.
http://mondofown.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/critique-of-brian-morris-of-circinfonet.html
-
Babies are given injections or any other non religious procedures without their informed consent, but that's ok because it doesn't feed people's religious prejudices.
That would be because modern medicines (inc. vaccinations) aren't administered just in order to comply with religious superstitions rooted in antiquity - I'd have thought that would be kinda obvious.
-
People who are biased.
Yep: I'm happily biased against mutilating baby boys in order to comply with religious traditions or cultural preferences.
-
Babies are given injections or any other non religious procedures without their informed consent,
Because there is a clear evidence base that it is clinically effective and therefore in the best interests of the child. If parents (or doctors) propose interventions that aren't beneficial then they will be prevented from intervening - just look at the recent court cases about futile treatment for a baby.
but that's ok because it doesn't feed people's religious prejudices.
Nothing to do with religious prejudice - while parents, quite rightly, have significant jurisdiction over their children that jurisdiction (thankfully) is restricted to decisions that are in the best interest of the child. Sadly religious customs are tip-toed around, with parents allowed to sanction acts on their children that would never be allowed if the justification were non religious.
-
I'm not convinced any of you are really interested in the actual babies, if you were, you would look at the research for it, and recognise that this matter has to be decided by the ones who love the baby the most, the parents with the advice of their doctors.
So are you saying that parents who choose not to have their baby boys circumcised (which would include me) are somehow failing in their duty to their babies. What offensive non-sense.
And advice of their doctors - again what a load of rubbish - I have two sons, never has any doctor given me advice that circumcision would be medically sensible. That would be preposterous.
Circumcision is, in the vast, vast majority of cases done for religious and cultural reasons for the obvious reason that there are no serious medical reasons to engage in 'precautionary' circumcision on a baby. If you are fine with that, well that's your opinion. I disagree, but don't try to pretend there are compelling medical reasons - there aren't. And there are very well established damaging effects on sexual function due to circumcision.
In any other circumstance we would call it assault.
-
That would be because modern medicines (inc. vaccinations) aren't administered just in order to comply with religious superstitions rooted in antiquity - I'd have thought that would be kinda obvious.
Neither are many circumcisions , and I have just spent ages quoting medical sources that says it has benefits aside from all or any religious arguments.
Nothing any of you have said has convinced me that the choice should be taken away from the parents of the boys concerned.
All you can all do, is witter on about barbaric religious practices rooted in antiquity.
So I don't think you should be allowed to dictate to other parents on their choices for their sons.
I wouldn't like to see circumcision forced on babies as standard, beneficial or not, but I do think parents have the right to make up their own minds and make their own choices.
Its that I'm defending.
Freedom from too many meddlers!
People who want to interfere in how others bring up their children, because they have this sort of grudge against religion.
Which religion doesn't matter.
There is nothing worse than this sort of "politically correct prejudice" against anything remotely religious.
::)
-
There is nothing worse than this sort of "politically correct prejudice" against anything remotely religious.
::)
So let's check for consistency shall we. I trust you are also completely comfortable with female genital mutilation if parents justify it on religious grounds.
-
So let's check for consistency shall we. I trust you are also completely comfortable with female genital mutilation if parents justify it on religious grounds.
Im not going round in circles again, it's already been discussed. I gave my answer at least twice.
-
Im not going round in circles again, it's already been discussed. I gave my answer at least twice.
Sorry - came to this thread - perhaps you'd like to reiterate please. Note too that a quick google will uncover all sorts of sites purporting to claim health benefits for female circumcision in exactly the same manner you've trawled for sites purporting to claim health benefits for male circumcision.
-
Sorry - came to this thread - perhaps you'd like to reiterate please. Note too that a quick google will uncover all sorts of sites purporting to claim health benefits for female circumcision in exactly the same manner you've trawled for sites purporting to claim health benefits for male circumcision.
But they are not sites like the Who.
I'm not putting it all again, you will have to read the thread.
-
Neither are many circumcisions , and I have just spent ages quoting medical sources that says it has benefits aside from all or any religious arguments.
So you have, but some of these aren't as sound as you imagine (see my last link) and involve using babies as a means to an end, be it a strategy to deal with the future incidence of HIV or preserving religious traditions. You still haven't explained why something you are portraying as medically sound isn't routine paediatric practise here in the UK.
Nothing any of you have said has convinced me that the choice should be taken away from the parents of the boys concerned.
You certainly seek keen to defend the indefensible.
All you can all do, is witter on about barbaric religious practices rooted in antiquity.
Which is the case for virtually all routine circumcisions.
So I don't think you should be allowed to dictate to other parents on their choices for their sons.
I think this is an issue where UK society should have a role, such as it does in disallowing anyone under 18 being tattooed even if their parents consent: so, is this too a constraint on parental choice?
I wouldn't like to see circumcision forced on babies as standard, beneficial or not, but I do think parents have the right to make up their own minds and make their own choices.
Then your position is incoherent since if circumcision is the best medical choice, which seems to be your take on this, then surely it should be mandatory and parents generally aren't qualified to determine otherwise.
Its that I'm defending.
So you are, but not very well.
Freedom from too many meddlers!
You mean such as people who want to chop bits of of baby boys to suite their agenda.
People who want to interfere in how others bring up their children, because they have this sort of grudge against religion.
Not really: my grudge is against those who seek to mutilate babies.
Which religion doesn't matter.
Oh religion matters, but only so much and not as far as it being more important than preventing unnecessary mutilation.
There is nothing worse than this sort of "politically correct prejudice" against anything remotely religious.
::)
I think there is, which is prejudice in favour of routinely mutilating babies - you see 'mutilating babies' is the key point that needs to be borne in mind.
-
But they are not sites like the Who.
I'm not putting it all again, you will have to read the thread.
From the information I have read the only health benefit accepted by the WHO is reduction in transmission of HIV. But this only of relevance in places where HIV is endemic. There is no justification on health grounds from the WHO for circumcision in the majority of the world where HIV infections are extremely rare and transmission far better controlled via consensual methods that have no health down-sides, e.g. condom use.
So in rare circumstances (i.e. endemic HIV) I can see that a case can be made that the health benefits associated with reduction in HIV transmission rates outweigh the huge effects on sexual health. However in the vast majority of cases (certainly in the UK) there is no such justification as the negative effects on sexual health are certain while the likelihood of prevention of HIV transmission is vanishingly unlikely.
So in summary the WHO do not support your view of elective infant circumcision in countries such as the UK.
-
From the information I have read the only health benefit accepted by the WHO is reduction in transmission of HIV. But this only of relevance in places where HIV is endemic. There is no justification on health grounds from the WHO for circumcision in the majority of the world where HIV infections are extremely rare and transmission far better controlled via consensual methods that have no health down-sides, e.g. condom use.
So in rare circumstances (i.e. endemic HIV) I can see that a case can be made that the health benefits associated with reduction in HIV transmission rates outweigh the huge effects on sexual health. However in the vast majority of cases (certainly in the UK) there is no such justification as the negative effects on sexual health are certain while the likelihood of prevention of HIV transmission is vanishingly unlikely.
So in summary the WHO do not support your view of elective infant circumcision in countries such as the UK.
The report is on one of my links, and that isn't what it says.
They see no problems with infant circumcision in a country like the uk which has access to hygienic conditions.
Quote:
Our review of the published literature shows that there is relatively little literature on this very common surgical procedure, but that neonatal, infant and child circumcision is generally a safe procedure when conducted by trained and experienced providers in hygienic conditions.
http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/neonatal_child_MC_UNAIDS.pdf
Basically, it's generally a safe procedure in the uk.
-
The report is on one of my links, and that isn't what it says.
Really!?! Have you actually read it - all of it?
Quote:
Our review of the published literature shows that there is relatively little literature on this very common surgical procedure, but that neonatal, infant and child circumcision is generally a safe procedure when conducted by trained and experienced providers in hygienic conditions.
http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/neonatal_child_MC_UNAIDS.pdf
Basically, it's generally a safe procedure in the uk.
That is an entirely different point. That the procedure is 'safe' doesn't mean it has health benefits. If a tattoo parlour operates under hygienic conditions getting a tattoo is rarely other than safe. That doesn't mean that getting a tattoo provides health benefits.
The WHO indicates that male circumcision is usually a safe operation (complications about 1%, so not zero) but in the UK there are no relevant health benefits and clear health down-sides in terms of sexual health down the line.
-
The report is on one of my links, and that isn't what it says.
They see no problems with infant circumcision in a country like the uk which has access to hygienic conditions.
Quote:
Our review of the published literature shows that there is relatively little literature on this very common surgical procedure, but that neonatal, infant and child circumcision is generally a safe procedure when conducted by trained and experienced providers in hygienic conditions.
http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/neonatal_child_MC_UNAIDS.pdf
Basically, it's generally a safe procedure in the uk.
Super: however another issue is whether it is ever a necessary procedure where there child concerned has no prevailing medical need to be circumcised. I suspect not, else it would be routine practice so that there are some competent practitioners out there says nothing about justifying circumcision so as to comply with religious or cultural traditions.
-
My philosophy of life is
"Live and let live"
If medical authorities deem it generally a safe procedure, I see no reason to interfere.
Having the freedom to practice your religion within the law is a human right, I see no reason to interfere with people and take that away.
Certainly not because of a few people here that keep on about how barbaric they are, because they are a bit different or because they happen to follow a religion someone doesn't like.
-
My philosophy of life is
"Live and let live"
If medical authorities deem it generally a safe procedure, I see no reason to interfere.
Tattoos are a safe procedure - are you happy for parents to be able to have their infants or children tattooed?
-
Really!?! Have you actually read it - all of it?
That is an entirely different point. That the procedure is 'safe' doesn't mean it has health benefits. If a tattoo parlour operates under hygienic conditions getting a tattoo is rarely other than safe. That doesn't mean that getting a tattoo provides health benefits.
The WHO indicates that male circumcision is usually a safe operation (complications about 1%, so not zero) but in the UK there are no relevant health benefits and clear health down-sides in terms of sexual health down the line.
Not according to that link. Yes I read it, plus some others.
-
Tattoos are a safe procedure - are you happy for parents to be able to have their infants or children tattooed?
It depends.
-
Not according to that link. Yes I read it, plus some others.
You clearly haven't actually read it - or perhaps you have, but don't really understand what it is saying.
Complication rates are low, but not zero - often about 1%. But of course the complication rate of not having the operation is, err, zero.
-
It depends.
On what?
Certainly in the UK it is illegal to tattoo a child, indeed even if that child is a 17 year old and has consented. And a parent cannot consent on behalf of a child.
Interestingly too on body piercing - under the age of 18 it is illegal to get a genital piercing and a parent cannot consent for one on behalf of an under 18 year old. Show the double standards - so you can permanently chop off a crucial part of the penis from a baby with parental consent, but it is illegal to have a foreskin stud (non permanent and can be removed with complete healing) if you are 17. Why the difference - because the former is justified on religious grounds.
-
My philosophy of life is
"Live and let live"
My philosophy of life includes 'don't mutilate and disfigure children to comply with traditions.
If medical authorities deem it generally a safe procedure, I see no reason to interfere.
I do if the procedure is carried out for non-medical reasons.
Having the freedom to practice your religion within the law is a human right, I see no reason to interfere with people and take that away.
Only so far, and in relation to societal norms: some Mormons see polygamy as a religious matter, as do JW's who reject blood transfusions, but neither is free to indulge these traditions.
Certainly not because of a few people here that keep on about how barbaric they are, because they are a bit different or because they happen to follow a religion someone doesn't like.
They can be a religious as they like provided they don't demand special privileges in the name of their religion (like being free to mutilate babies).
-
as do JW's who reject blood transfusions, but neither is free to indulge these traditions.
Adult JW are free to refuse blood transfusions (even if that means they die) provided they are deemed to have the capacity to consent (or in this case refuse to consent).
JW parents are not permitted to refuse a blood transfusion on behalf of a child.
-
They can be a religious as they like provided they don't demand special privileges in the name of their religion (like being free to mutilate babies).
Exactly my point regarding the astonishing double standards relating to parents being able to consent to permanently mutilate their male infant's penis involving permanent removal of key parts of the sexual organ (cos its religious) but a 17 year-old not being able to consent (or his parents consenting on his behalf) not being allowed to have a foreskin stud which can be readily reversed and will heal completely. Oh but that isn't a religious tradition.
-
On what?
On the reason.
For example if a child was very allergic to something and it was life threatening and they were unable to wear a bracelet or necklace or it was inclined to become lost or get pulled off. A small symbol indicating their allergy might be useful. If it was small, easily recognisable, hidden and medics knew where to look.
Or if they found a way of helping with some skin discolouration or patches and it was proved to help long term with it.
I'm not closed minded to the idea tattoos might have some useful properties, in a few cases.
Anyway this is off topic.
-
Adult JW are free to refuse blood transfusions (even if that means they die) provided they are deemed to have the capacity to consent (or in this case refuse to consent).
JW parents are not permitted to refuse a blood transfusion on behalf of a child.
You are wrong.
They can refuse on behalf of a child , but then it goes to court and they are overruled.
https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/12/15/judge-orders-blood-transfusion-for-jehovahs-witness-child/
-
On the reason.
For example if a child was very allergic to something and it was life threatening and they were unable to wear a bracelet or necklace or it was inclined to become lost or get pulled off. A small symbol indicating their allergy might be useful. If it was small, easily recognisable, hidden and medics knew where to look.
Or if they found a way of helping with some skin discolouration or patches and it was proved to help long term with it.
I'm not closed minded to the idea tattoos might have some useful properties, in a few cases.
Anyway this is off topic.
What are you on about.
If a child is allergic to something you don't tattoo them, FFS, you get them to wear a bracelet and there will always be a material that the bracelet can be made of that they are allergic to.
You are really scraping the barrel.
But you are still using massive double standards, as you standard for circumcision is merely that the parents want it cos of their religion, while for tattooing you use totally convoluted and non-sensical examples. If you were maxing out on double standards you'd accept that parents should be allowed to tattoo their baby for no other reason than it is their cultural/religious view.
-
You are wrong.
They can refuse on behalf of a child , but then it goes to court and they are overruled.
https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/12/15/judge-orders-blood-transfusion-for-jehovahs-witness-child/
No they can't - and don't get into this territory because I know what I am talking about. The decision has to be taken in the best interests of the child - to refuse a blood transfusion will not be considered to be in the child's best interests.
They aren't 'over-ruled' - the court isn't interested in over-ruling anyone - their only role is to determine what it is in the best interest of the child.
-
But you are still using massive double standards, as you standard for circumcision is merely that the parents want it cos of their religion, while for tattooing you use totally convoluted and non-sensical examples. If you were maxing out on double standards you'd accept that parents should be allowed to tattoo their baby for no other reason than it is their cultural/religious view.
No I'm not. This is not a double standard.
If medical authorities deem it generally a safe procedure, I see no reason to interfere.
Having the freedom to practice your religion within the law is a human right, I see no reason to interfere with people and take that away.
Certainly not because of a few people here that keep on about how barbaric they are, because they are a bit different or because they happen to follow a religion someone doesn't like.
The double standard is the one that says it's wrong, because the people doing it are religious.
-
No I'm not. This is not a double standard.
The double standard is the one that says it's wrong, because the people doing it are religious.
Nope the double standard is what you allow it 'cos it's based on religion' but you wouldn't do so when justified on ground other than religious.
The difference between the UK law on male infant circumcision and male foreskin piercing (even for a 17 year old) clearly indicates that double standard.
-
No they can't - and don't get into this territory because I know what I am talking about. The decision has to be taken in the best interests of the child - to refuse a blood transfusion will not be considered to be in the child's best interests.
They aren't 'over-ruled' - the court isn't interested in over-ruling anyone - their only role is to determine what it is in the best interest of the child.
You said the parents are "not permitted" to refuse, which isn't true. No one can stop them refusing.
They DO refuse, and the court does overrule their decision.
I don't think you know what you are talking about, for all your claims that you do.
There is nothing that says JW parents are " not permitted" to refuse. That's complete nonsense.
The parents refuse and then it goes to the courts who decide what is in the child's best interests.
It says what I am saying here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7078673.stm
"Doctors treating children can obtain court orders to override the wishes of both child and parents, if they believe treatment to be in the best interests of their patient."
-
Nope the double standard is what you allow it 'cos it's based on religion' but you wouldn't do so when justified on ground other than religious.
The difference between the UK law on male infant circumcision and male foreskin piercing (even for a 17 year old) clearly indicates that double standard.
What are you on about?
-
This thread is drifting
Into tattoos and Jehovahs Witnesses 🙄
Time to call it a day I think.
None of you have put forward a convincing argument that doesn't rely on dissing someone else's religion or reason for doing so.
Not one of you has shown any conclusive proof that it causes harm from a source that isn't biased with the same hang ups about religion and barbarity that you all seem to have.
Instead you have accused the Who of being biased and every link I have managed to find, most of which were not biased at all.
We've gone round and round in circles, revisiting topics again and again.
Finally ending up with jehovahs Witnesses, who I do know something about.
🙄 ( having some in the family helps)
Being told not to venture in to that territory because another poster supposedly knows more, tells me it's time to say good night and leave this whole topic.
Mainly because you all think you are such experts on it, more so than many medical opinions 🙄 And unbiased opinions.
Many of you need to learn how to " live and let live" especially when the opinion that matters isn't yours!
Whether it be on how Muslim women dress, what sort of food religious people eat and how they kill and prepare their meat, to circumcision, or even how many wives someone has. No part of their lives escapes your attempt to make them like you.
Let's face it, a lot of you have a problem with people who are different to yourselves.
You are most of the time constantly trying to make them, just like you. I think you must find the differences very threatening.
Of course this isn't intended for every poster on here, but reading this thread should illuminate those I'm referring to.
We've done this before on a multitude of topics, where half of you are so hung up about difference you can't see the other POV.
You know who you are.
Time for me to move on, I think our discussions are getting stale now.
Bye!
-
No I'm not. This is not a double standard.
The double standard is the one that says it's wrong, because the people doing it are religious.
Except no one has said that.
-
Not as warped as the intolerant one, who uses any excuse to have a dig at religious people, while hiding behind double standards.
What double standards?
It's just an excuse for prejudiced people to have a dig at Jews/Muslims/or other ethnic/religious group without getting called out for discrimination.
But that's what it is.
Is it? How do you claim to know this? Seems like most of this thread has been given over to so-called therapeutic circumcision (i.e. supposedly as a preventative against HIV/Aids) rather than rital circumcision. You can't have it both ways.
Moreover the religious are not, as you seem to think, above criticism or hothouse lilies who must be pandered to in everything all the time. If a thing is wrong, it remains wrong even if some clown does it and bleats that it's his 'religious rghts'. If, as the law says, it's wrong to cut a dog's throat and let it bleed to death in your spare bedroom or garden, it's just as wrong to do it to a cow while chanting gibberish while you're about it and then saying your bumper book of desert fairy tales demands it of you. As has been well said before on this thread, a 'religious requirement' carried out in exactly and precisely the same way but without claiming the untouchable status of religion for it would be deemed a crime. We pander to these types much too much by far.
Babies are given injections or any other non religious procedures without their informed consent, but that's ok because it doesn't feed people's religious prejudices.
Injections are not surgery and permanently body-altering surgery at that. They're also administered on the basis of medical need.
I'm not convinced any of you are really interested in the actual babies
That's your problem, amongst others.
It isn't even something I chose for my own sons, that was our choice , but I recognise people with an anti religious agenda, and that's what I see here.
Certainly true in my case, always has been; but are we discussing ritual circumcision of infants for 'religious' reasons, or elective circumcision by adults? Make up what you call your mind.
People who are biased.
I've always been biased against stupidity and barbarism and their simpering defenders. I hope to remain so.
But I see that in the face of united criticism you've absented yourself from the discussion.
-
Rose,
You said that your philosophy is Live and let live.
You are using this "philosophy" for justifying the right to mutilate your new-born son in accordance with cultural traditions,
why not, instead,
Use it to justify the right for your new-born to have an intact body which conforms to its genetic blueprint rather than mutilating it in accordance with cultural tradition?
Does "live and let live" mean protecting pathological cultural practices? Or does it mean allowing that which is natural to prevail?
-
Finally ending up with jehovahs Witnesses, who I do know something about.
🙄 ( having some in the family helps)
Being told not to venture in to that territory because another poster supposedly knows more, tells me it's time to say good night and leave this whole topic.
This comment again show you don't really understand the point. This issue isn't about JW's religious practices, but about medical ethics - in other words the ethics and law around consent and parental consent (actually better described as parental authorisation). The reason why I said not to stray into that territory is because I have longstanding (over 20 years) which includes teaching at Masters level and having studied these cases extensively.
That's why I know what I am talking about - I think that trumps your 'I've got some JWs in the family' and googling the law/ethics.
-
Whether it be on how Muslim women dress, what sort of food religious people eat ...
We aren't talking about the decisions that an adult with the capacity to consent makes for themselves about themselves. We are talking about permanent and irreversible surgery carried out on a baby, with no medical need, but simply for religious purposes where that baby has no choice in the matter. And of course where that baby may grow up to regret or resent was was done to them without their permission.
-
And of course where that baby may grow up to regret or resent was was done to them without their permission.
Sorry to interrupt your excellent examination of Rose's errant thinking, but you have just annoyed me with what is possibly an unintended piece of political correctness (probably a consequence of your academic environment).
... or resent was was done to them without their permission.
We are talking about boys. A girl doesn't have a penis. Therefore ... or resent was was done to him without his permission is much better English.
Back to the subject: I certainly resent the fact that I do not have an intact penis. In my case the mutilation was not done for any cultural reason but merely because it was a thoughtless, routine, fashionable practice, a "service" routinely offered by midwives at home births.
Presumably, a nice little earner and never referred to in Call the Midwife.
-
... or resent was was done to them without their permission.
We are talking about boys. A girl doesn't have a penis. Therefore ... or resent was was done to him without his permission is much better English.
Point taken - although not intentional.
-
This comment again show you don't really understand the point. This issue isn't about JW's religious practices, but about medical ethics - in other words the ethics and law around consent and parental consent (actually better described as parental authorisation). The reason why I said not to stray into that territory is because I have longstanding (over 20 years) which includes teaching at Masters level and having studied these cases extensively.
That's why I know what I am talking about - I think that trumps your 'I've got some JWs in the family' and googling the law/ethics.
Then you should have had more sense than to claim
"JW parents are not permitted to refuse a blood transfusion on behalf of a child."
They are permitted, that's why it goes to court. If they weren't permitted to refuse it, the doctors wouldn't have to take it to court.
You are still wrong.
Or maybe what you should have said is their refusal is not allowed to go unchallenged, which is different.
-
Except no one has said that.
If you read between the lines at some of the objections, yes they have.
-
If you read between the lines at some of the objections, yes they have.
Reading between the lines, or in other words making stuff up.
-
Then you should have had more sense than to claim
"JW parents are not permitted to refuse a blood transfusion on behalf of a child."
They are permitted, that's why it goes to court. If they weren't permitted to refuse it, the doctors wouldn't have to take it to court.
You are still wrong.
Or maybe what you should have said is their refusal is not allowed to go unchallenged, which is different.
You really don't get it do you.
The court has already ruled in several of these cases - therefore normally there won't be an appeal to the courts - there will already be case law to confirm that receiving the blood transfusion is in the child's best interests and therefore the only action that can be authorised (which under the law must be in the best interests of the child) will be to proceed with the blood transfusion.
The parents aren't being 'over-ruled' there is simply a legal view that it is in the child's best interests to have the transfusion.
-
Then you should have had more sense than to claim
"JW parents are not permitted to refuse a blood transfusion on behalf of a child."
They are permitted, that's why it goes to court. If they weren't permitted to refuse it, the doctors wouldn't have to take it to court.
You are still wrong.
Or maybe what you should have said is their refusal is not allowed to go unchallenged, which is different.
Just to confirm that you actually know what you are talking about:
Can you confirm that you have actually read the key judgements in these cases - not a BBC article, but the actual judgement. Also that you have read the serious academic literature relating to these cases, and to medical consent in general.
Because if not I think you might want to simply accept that I have a better knowledge of the ethical position and the law in these circumstances.
-
"JW parents are not permitted to refuse a blood transfusion on behalf of a child."
They are permitted, that's why it goes to court. If they weren't permitted to refuse it, the doctors wouldn't have to take it to court.
No - if they were permitted the court (if it goes to court) would rule that the child should not have the transfusion - if the court (if it goes that far) always rules that the child should have the transfusion then it is self evident that they are not permitted to refuse the transfusion because the transfusion always happens.
-
Rose,
You said that your philosophy is Live and let live.
You are using this "philosophy" for justifying the right to mutilate your new-born son in accordance with cultural traditions,
why not, instead,
Use it to justify the right for your new-born to have an intact body which conforms to its genetic blueprint rather than mutilating it in accordance with cultural tradition?
Does "live and let live" mean protecting pathological cultural practices? Or does it mean allowing that which is natural to prevail?
It can mean either, depending on circumstance.
If it was forced on non religious families who didn't want it, then yes I would argue it shouldn't be forced on families who don't want it.
Even if there were some marginal health benefits.
What I object to most is people forcing their own ways on others.
As far as I can see the circumcision of boys has less of an impact than is made out. 80% of boys were circumcised in the USA.
The risks obviously weren't as high as people claim.
However, it was in a way forced on families of boys, so I don't hold with that either.
IMO it's marginal, as to health benefits vs risk. There is no one answer fits all. Which why I am on the side of people who are having the choice taken away by others.
It should be a parental choice, given that the medical authorities don't seem to think the risk is great enough for an outright ban, ( like FGM) so we should stop trying to force all people to all be the same.
Also to many people use it to attack people of religion, labelling them barbaric etc etc.
The hatred of their religion is quite noticeable.
I look at it, take into account the medical reasoning ( remembering it was considered reasonable to circumcise 80% of boys in the USA) try and separate the religious prejudice.
From that I have decided that whether parents do or don't, should be something they decide for their own son ( not a lot of prejudiced busybodies).
It's having the freedom for parents to decide what is best for their son. For them to have a choice at all they can't be dictated to. ( this works with male circumcision because it's borderline)
As a parallel look at abortion.
Some people disagree very strongly with that, so much so even rape cases can't have one. There is a risk with abortions too, and the expelled foetus has no chance to give consent, and where people consider a baby becomes a person varies from person to person.
My choice is the same as with circumcision.
No one should have an abortion forced on them, and no one should stop someone who desperately wants one. The medical authorities set what they think is ethical.
My answer is that those who are against it, shouldn't have one, but people who do,should be able to make their own choices.
To do that, the law has to allow people to make their own choices.
People might disagree strongly with their choices, but the choices need to be there.
What I am against is people interfering in other people's choices on matters I consider marginal where I feel the people who it concerns should have a large say.
In this case, we are arguing male circumcision. I think it should be up to the parents.
Just like I think abortion should be up to the parents ( or in that case the woman, although there is some argument that in some cases men should have a say).
It isn't as inconsistent as some people would like to make out.
I'm against people forcing their own choices on others, and I tend to stand up for those I feel are having it forced on them.
To allow a choice with abortion I have to be pro choice, even if in my heart I'm more pro life in most cases.
For me it's about being free to have an opinion and act on it. For people to be free to make their own choices within medical boundaries.
People think I'm inconsistent, but actually I'm not.
I'd prefer society not to dictate certain things, male circumcision and abortion are just two of them.
I'm sure someone here will dig up some extreme example, thereby missing the whole point about it being about freedom and choice and a balance.
It's a middle path that allows for diversity of opinion where possible. It's about not judging people as barbaric just because the belong to a religion, but it's also about not allowing the religious to create laws that restricts the rights of others choices, like with abortion.
It's about an individuals freedom, within certain bounds to decide and act on their own conscience.
Whether they are religious or not.
-
No - if they were permitted the court (if it goes to court) would rule that the child should not have the transfusion - if the court (if it goes that far) always rules that the child should have the transfusion then it is self evident that they are not permitted to refuse the transfusion because the transfusion always happens.
it has to go to court because they are permitted to say no, first.
Otherwise asking them in the first place, would serve no purpose.
Because they have said no, it takes a court to say, yes that procedure is in the best interest of the child.
The doctors alone cannot go against the parents refusal to give consent.
If they were not permitted to refuse in the first place, the doctors could just ignore them. ( and there would be no point in even asking for consent in the first place)
-
No - if they were permitted the court (if it goes to court) would rule that the child should not have the transfusion - if the court (if it goes that far) always rules that the child should have the transfusion then it is self evident that they are not permitted to refuse the transfusion because the transfusion always happens.
Firstly the parents are asked for their consent.
They refuse it ( which they are permitted to do, it's their right and why they are asked in the first place)
The doctors disagree with their refusal ( which is permitted at this point) but they cannot overrule the parents as they would get charged with criminal proceedings.
So they take it to the courts, who look at both the parents arguments and the doctors, and the court rules which is in the best interests of the child.
The court then tells the doctors they can, or can't proceed.
In effect the doctors have to get the court to over rule the parents refusal.
So which bit in that is wrong then?
If the parents weren't permitted to refuse you could do away with doctors having to go to the courts in the first place.
In this case, the doctors lost, with a liver transplant. Not a Jehovah's Witness but the court upheld the parents stance in this case.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/court-upholds-mothers-right-to-let-child-die-parents-right-to-refuse-surgery-for-child-upheld-1359999.html
-
Circumcision can cause medical problems if it isn't done properly. Besides which, it was done without an anaesthetic on baby boys, when done for religious purposes, which is very cruel indeed. I don't know if that is still the case today, but if so it is abuse, imo.
-
Yes it's available
https://circumcisioncentre.co.uk/what-does-a-male-child-circumcision-involve/
http://www.mohel-circumcision.co.uk/1298.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/malecircumcision.shtml
Islamic circumcision isn't age specific according to that, which means most of you won't object to it as it can wait until they are old enough to give consent.
It's mainly Jewish circumcisions most people seem to have an issue with. ( which is why I seem to concentrate my argument on Jewish circumcision)
-
Islamic circumcision isn't age specific according to that, which means most of you won't object to it as it can wait until they are old enough to give consent.
It's mainly Jewish all non-consenting, enforced circumcisions without the informed consent of a competent subject most people seem to have an issue with.
Fixed it for you.
-
It can mean either, depending on circumstance.
If it was forced on non religious families who didn't want it, then yes I would argue it shouldn't be forced on families who don't want it.
Even if there were some marginal health benefits.
What I object to most is people forcing their own ways on others.
As far as I can see the circumcision of boys has less of an impact than is made out. 80% of boys were circumcised in the USA.
The risks obviously weren't as high as people claim.
However, it was in a way forced on families of boys, so I don't hold with that either.
IMO it's marginal, as to health benefits vs risk. There is no one answer fits all. Which why I am on the side of people who are having the choice taken away by others.
It should be a parental choice, given that the medical authorities don't seem to think the risk is great enough for an outright ban, ( like FGM) so we should stop trying to force all people to all be the same.
Also to many people use it to attack people of religion, labelling them barbaric etc etc.
The hatred of their religion is quite noticeable.
I look at it, take into account the medical reasoning ( remembering it was considered reasonable to circumcise 80% of boys in the USA) try and separate the religious prejudice.
From that I have decided that whether parents do or don't, should be something they decide for their own son ( not a lot of prejudiced busybodies).
It's having the freedom for parents to decide what is best for their son. For them to have a choice at all they can't be dictated to. ( this works with male circumcision because it's borderline)
As a parallel look at abortion.
Some people disagree very strongly with that, so much so even rape cases can't have one. There is a risk with abortions too, and the expelled foetus has no chance to give consent, and where people consider a baby becomes a person varies from person to person.
My choice is the same as with circumcision.
No one should have an abortion forced on them, and no one should stop someone who desperately wants one. The medical authorities set what they think is ethical.
My answer is that those who are against it, shouldn't have one, but people who do,should be able to make their own choices.
To do that, the law has to allow people to make their own choices.
People might disagree strongly with their choices, but the choices need to be there.
What I am against is people interfering in other people's choices on matters I consider marginal where I feel the people who it concerns should have a large say.
In this case, we are arguing male circumcision. I think it should be up to the parents.
Just like I think abortion should be up to the parents ( or in that case the woman, although there is some argument that in some cases men should have a say).
It isn't as inconsistent as some people would like to make out.
I'm against people forcing their own choices on others, and I tend to stand up for those I feel are having it forced on them.
To allow a choice with abortion I have to be pro choice, even if in my heart I'm more pro life in most cases.
For me it's about being free to have an opinion and act on it. For people to be free to make their own choices within medical boundaries.
People think I'm inconsistent, but actually I'm not.
I'd prefer society not to dictate certain things, male circumcision and abortion are just two of them.
I'm sure someone here will dig up some extreme example, thereby missing the whole point about it being about freedom and choice and a balance.
It's a middle path that allows for diversity of opinion where possible. It's about not judging people as barbaric just because the belong to a religion, but it's also about not allowing the religious to create laws that restricts the rights of others choices, like with abortion.
It's about an individuals freedom, within certain bounds to decide and act on their own conscience.
Whether they are religious or not.
All of which shows that you have given this matter very little thought. You have now made me angry.
Let's look at it from another angle:
You clearly cannot support female genital mutilation. It's purpose is to deprive women of sexual sensation and to make them more amenable to their husband's/father's/controller's/owner's will.
What if the cultural reason for male genital mutilation is broadly the same? It's purpose is to reduce the level of sexual sensation because the religious power elite choose to portray sexual activity as bad and to promote feelings of shame and guilt about sex.
Because I have undergone this mutilation as a baby, how do I know that the sensations I experience in sexual intercourse, in range and intensity, are anything like those of a man who possesses a prepuce? Don't forget that the prepuce is the most highly innervated part of a man's sexual apparatus. Don't forget that the absence of the prepuce means that the penis has to behave in a totally different way from an intact penis when in the vagina. Don't forget that the cicumcised glans is covered with hard, keratinised, relatively insensitive skin. Don't forget that the prepuce contains about 30% of the total skin area of the penis.
All of these characteristics are removed. What makes up for the millions of lost nerves and sensory receptors that are thrown away? What is the consequence - in terms of sensation - of keratinisation? What is the consequence of the loss of the self-lubrication the prepuce effects?
What right does anyone - parent, rabbi, doctor, imam, midwife, tribal chief, forum contributor - have to prevent anyone enjoying the consequences of having an entire penis by removing the foreskin from a new-born baby?
To quote from you most recent diatribe ... What I object to most is people forcing their own ways on others. What else is infant circumcision than people forcing their own ways on others?
-
To quote from you most recent diatribe ... What I object to most is people forcing their own ways on others. What else is infant circumcision than people forcing their own ways on others?
And that, old fruit, is the contradiction to which you will find no resolution.
-
And that, old fruit, is the contradiction to which you will find no resolution.
So we shall just have to agree to disagree.
-
No let's not. Let's agree that your statement What I object to most is people forcing their own ways on others is a prime example of the practice that you support.
-
So we shall just have to agree to disagree.
We shall, especially as you don't seem to have put forward any reasonable suggestion as to why baby boys should be mutilated in this way.
-
We shall, especially as you don't seem to have put forward any reasonable suggestion as to why baby boys should be mutilated in this way.
It's not that they should be, I'm not suggesting everyone does it.
It's more about letting other parents make their own choices on it.
-
No let's not. Let's agree that your statement What I object to most is people forcing their own ways on others is a prime example of the practice that you support.
No I don't
I'm objecting to people making it against the law, to prevent other parents from making their own choices.
-
No I don't
I'm objecting to people making it against the law, to prevent other parents from making their own choices.
The parents are not, self evidently I'd have thought, making their own choices: they're making choices which are imposed upon another, non-legally-competent party without that party's informed consent.
-
I didn't realize that tattoos for children are illegal, although it's obvious why they are. There are no valid arguments then for circumcision of male infants, except medical ones.
-
Which seems like a classic case of using people (in this case newborns) as a means to an end.
No idea what that means or why anyone should feel particularly bad about it if it is a means to an end.
Being pragmatic, if significant sections of a population engage in infant circumcision of their male children because they believe it is beneficial to their child through a mix of religious, cultural and medical reasoning, and if using the tools of science, studies show that statistically there is a medical benefit to circumcising them as infants compared to waiting until those boys become sexually active and hoping that despite the increased pain, discomfort and risks they will choose to undergo the operation themselves before they have sex, it's not really surprising that circumcision is not discouraged by various sections of the medical establishment in areas where there is limited resources, infrastructure and funding to tackle HIV and STDs. They might not actively campaign to promote infant circumcision but they are not going to look a gift horse in the mouth, if they genuinely agree with the studies that widespread circumcision helps control the spread of HIV and certain other STDs in parts of the world where HIV spread is a serious problem.
It's up to scientists and experts to reach a consensus on whether the benefits of mutilating infant boys outweighs the harm. Or if science can't give a definitive answer one way or the other, it is up to fathers who miss their foreskins sufficiently to refuse to have their sons circumcised, I mean mutilated. Obviously fathers who don't miss their foreskins won't be persuaded by that argument but might be persuaded that their sons might prefer to receive drugs to treat HIV compared to being circumcised, I mean mutilated. Unless of course the scientific and medical community reach a consensus that persuades people there is no validity to the studies that show HIV spread in heterosexuals is controlled by circumcision, I mean mutilation.
-
The parents are not, self evidently I'd have thought, making their own choices: they're making choices which are imposed upon another, non-legally-competent party without that party's informed consent.
Modern life is full of such debates and questions.
An awful lot of people maintain parents, are the people to make the decision on behalf of children unable to give consent.
That is certainly the case in abortion, which definately causes an unborn potential human being harm.
Because there is no "common sense" answer on such questions they are debatable and highly controversial.
A anti abortionist would say you are being inconsistant in allowing abortion as it involves harm to a potential human being.
Some people complain I haven't thought it through, but I have. A lot.
I think that others here haven't really thought through the opposing viewpoint, and what it really means to them.
I've thought through both sides, and have come to the conclusion this is something that can only be decided by the parents concerned.
-
Mutilating baby boys can cause harm.
-
Modern life is full of such debates and questions.
An awful lot of people maintain parents, are the people to make the decision on behalf of children unable to give consent.
That is certainly the case in abortion, which definately causes an unborn potential human being harm.
Because there is no "common sense" answer on such questions they are debatable and highly controversial.
A anti abortionist would say you are being inconsistant in allowing abortion as it involves harm to a potential human being.
You can't cause any harm to a potential (as opposed to an actual) subject.
-
Mutilating baby boys can cause harm.
I think that should read:
Mutilating baby boys does cause harm.
-
From the information I have read the only health benefit accepted by the WHO is reduction in transmission of HIV. But this only of relevance in places where HIV is endemic. There is no justification on health grounds from the WHO for circumcision in the majority of the world where HIV infections are extremely rare and transmission far better controlled via consensual methods that have no health down-sides, e.g. condom use.
So in rare circumstances (i.e. endemic HIV) I can see that a case can be made that the health benefits associated with reduction in HIV transmission rates outweigh the huge effects on sexual health. However in the vast majority of cases (certainly in the UK) there is no such justification as the negative effects on sexual health are certain while the likelihood of prevention of HIV transmission is vanishingly unlikely.
So in summary the WHO do not support your view of elective infant circumcision in countries such as the UK.
There is always a political element to policy decisions, in which case parents just have to make the best decision they can while trying to balance the conflicting ethical considerations and with the limited information at their disposal. No doubt when the scientific community reach a consensus on whether circumcision reduces the spread of certain diseases, parents will be able to make more informed choices.
Regarding UK policy, you do know that people travel right? That they don't just live in one country for the rest of their lives? HIV is on the increase in the UK, especially amongst certain African heterosexual communities who travel between the UK and places like Uganda and settle here, yet the resources allocated to tackling the issue amongst these particular black communities is far less than those allocated to other communities.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/10/aids.adrianlevy
It appears that medical statistics and evidence is sometimes buried because it offends people's world view or certain ethical values they hold dear.
Studies looking into the increase in HIV have continued to note that amongst other things, circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexual transmission.
-
No idea what that means or why anyone should feel particularly bad about it if it is a means to an end.
Being pragmatic, if significant sections of a population engage in infant circumcision of their male children because they believe it is beneficial to their child through a mix of religious, cultural and medical reasoning, and if using the tools of science, studies show that statistically there is a medical benefit to circumcising them as infants compared to waiting until those boys become sexually active and hoping that despite the increased pain, discomfort and risks they will choose to undergo the operation themselves before they have sex, it's not really surprising that circumcision is not discouraged by various sections of the medical establishment in areas where there is limited resources, infrastructure and funding to tackle HIV and STDs. They might not actively campaign to promote infant circumcision but they are not going to look a gift horse in the mouth, if they genuinely agree with the studies that widespread circumcision helps control the spread of HIV and certain other STDs in parts of the world where HIV spread is a serious problem.
It's up to scientists and experts to reach a consensus on whether the benefits of mutilating infant boys outweighs the harm. Or if science can't give a definitive answer one way or the other, it is up to fathers who miss their foreskins sufficiently to refuse to have their sons circumcised, I mean mutilated. Obviously fathers who don't miss their foreskins won't be persuaded by that argument but might be persuaded that their sons might prefer to receive drugs to treat HIV compared to being circumcised, I mean mutilated. Unless of course the scientific and medical community reach a consensus that persuades people there is no validity to the studies that show HIV spread in heterosexuals is controlled by circumcision, I mean mutilation.
Which is all very nice were it not for the fact that circumcision as a religious tradition dates to the superstitions of antiquity and, therefore, was established well before the discipline of science, epidemiology in general, or HIV in particular. For example 'The basis for Jews to circumcise their sons is found in the bible (Genesis 17, 10-14), where it says: "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised".'
http://www.zentralratdjuden.de/en/article/3734.why-do-jews-circumcise-their-children.html
No mention of HIV or STD's.
-
Which is all very nice were it not for the fact that circumcision as a religious tradition dates to the superstitions of antiquity and, therefore, was established well before the discipline of science, epidemiology in general, or HIV in particular. For example 'The basis for Jews to circumcise their sons is found in the bible (Genesis 17, 10-14), where it says: "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised".'
http://www.zentralratdjuden.de/en/article/3734.why-do-jews-circumcise-their-children.html
No mention of HIV or STD's.
Ah the Old Testament - that well known book of science full of detailed medical research and explanations. No wait it's a simplistic religious text full of stories, sketchy on context and detail and with very little scientific terminology.
I seem to remember a few plagues being mentioned in it though and I remember a possible drastic cure for one being to kill everyone except the virgin women/ girls - where was the NHS when they needed it? Maybe, given the suggested cure that could have been a plague transmitted through sexual contact but I guess we will never know - given the limited information passed on to us about STDs during the Bronze Age.
-
Which is all very nice were it not for the fact that circumcision as a religious tradition dates to the superstitions of antiquity and, therefore, was established well before the discipline of science, epidemiology in general, or HIV in particular. For example 'The basis for Jews to circumcise their sons is found in the bible (Genesis 17, 10-14), where it says: "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised".'
http://www.zentralratdjuden.de/en/article/3734.why-do-jews-circumcise-their-children.html
No mention of HIV or STD's.
You keep on and on about religion Gordon and your criticism of it. It's irrelevant.
It doesn't change the fact that research that has been done supports that it has benefits medically.
Therefore, you have no reason to deny a parents request to do this.
Whether you find their religion barbaric is neither here nor there.
80% of males were circumcised in the USA.
None of that had anything to do with religion.
-
Ah the Old Testament - that well known book of science full of detailed medical research and explanations. No wait it's a simplistic religious text full of stories, sketchy on context and detail and with very little scientific terminology.
I seem to remember a few plagues being mentioned in it though and I remember a possible drastic cure for one being to kill everyone except the virgin women/ girls - where was the NHS when they needed it? Maybe, given the suggested cure that could have been a plague transmitted through sexual contact but I guess we will never know - given the limited information passed on to us about STDs during the Bronze Age.
Yep - silly to take these old texts from less enlightened times seriously over two millennia after they were written: sadly though these same old texts from antiquity still seem to be germane to why people who subscribe to Jewish tradition today continue to mutilate their male children.
-
Yep - silly to take these old texts from less enlightened times seriously over two millennia after they were written: sadly though these same old texts from antiquity still seem to be germane to why people who subscribe to Jewish tradition today continue to mutilate their male children.
Yep - would be silly to consider them a source of detailed medical knowledge today as opposed to a source of spiritual knowledge and religious identity - anyone who wants a religious identity or a particular view on spirituality might well find something beneficial in old texts. But no, I can't see anything purporting to be detailed or useful medical knowledge in these texts so might as well look at actual research and medical studies and evaluate those as part of the decision-making process if you are a parent deciding whether mutilation is in the best interests of your infant son.
-
You keep on and on about religion Gordon and your criticism of it. It's irrelevant.
Not when it is done to comply with religious traditions.
It doesn't change the fact that research that has been done supports that it has benefits medically.
Then why isn't circumcision mandatory if the medical benefits are so significant? Even then this argument doesn't support that the tradition of circumcision predates the medical science as we know it today.
Therefore, you have no reason to deny a parents request to do this.
I do: I think mutilating children is wrong, and if this particular form of mutilation wasn't dressed up as 'religious tradition' it would be illegal on the same basis that in the UK tattooing children is illegal.
Whether you find their religion barbaric is neither here nor there.
80% of males were circumcised in the USA.
None of that had anything to do with religion.
Not all cultural pressures are religious: that the situation in the US is so different from the UK kinda blows your 'medical benefits' argument to smithereens given that both are allegedly advanced in medical matters.
-
Yep - would be silly to consider them a source of detailed medical knowledge today as opposed to a source of spiritual knowledge and religious identity - anyone who wants a religious identity or a particular view on spirituality might well find something beneficial in old texts. But no, I can't see anything purporting to be detailed or useful medical knowledge in these texts so might as well look at actual research and medical studies and evaluate those as part of the decision-making process if you are a parent deciding whether mutilation is in the best interests of your infant son.
If you are going to beat the medical drum, as opposed to religious superstitions dating from antiquity, then you need to explain why circumcision isn't medical best practice here in the UK: either the medical argument is a red-herring excuse for those intent on maintaining barbaric religious traditions or else medical standards here in the UK are inadequate by not aggressively advocating circumcision.
-
If you are going to beat the medical drum, as opposed to religious superstitions dating from antiquity, then you need to explain why circumcision isn't medical best practice here in the UK: either the medical argument is a red-herring excuse for those intent on maintaining barbaric religious traditions or else medical standards here in the UK are inadequate by not aggressively advocating circumcision.
Because the medical authorities don't think the benefits are sufficient to force every boy in the country to be circumcised and so they leave the choice to parents to make up their own minds.
( plus it would be madness to force it on families who don't want it done, just because the benefits are marginal)
Hence those who decide they want it for their sons can get it done. Those that don't, don't.
The alternative would be to make it illegal and then it would be done backstreet, like abortions used to be. In unsanitary conditions.
Isn't it better to allow those to whom it matters to, to get on with it? Because at least it can be done by a professional in hygienic conditions, with proper medical care?
Your arguments are ALL or nothing. Either you see it forced on everyone, or it's made illegal.
There is a middle ground that allows those that want it to go ahead with it, and the benefits. Those that don't are free not to do it.
I much prefer things as they are now.
I would hate to see such things done " underground in some back street clinic".
What I won't do, is watch people like you, use it to victimise religious people.
-
The alternative would be to make it illegal and then it would be done backstreet, like abortions used to be. In unsanitary conditions.
Abortion is elective, i.e. a matter of choice by an individual capable of making it.
Typically circumcision, just in case you missed it, isn't.
Isn't it better to allow those to whom it matters to, get on with it?
With your customary obtuseness "those to whom it matters" are not given a say in the matter. If people wish to hack bits off bodies for the most ridiculous and spurious of pseudo-reasons they are, if competent and consenting, free to practice upon themselves. I would be more than happy for them to decapitate themselves in the name of their chosen interpretation of some supernatural fantasy, should that be their wish.
Unfortunately for the planet and its inhabitants, the wholly unwarranted respect accorded to batshit insane beliefs means that it's considered acceptable in some quarters for the holders of said beliefs to impose them on others, and for the weak and credulous and lacking in spine to support them in doing so.
-
If you are going to beat the medical drum, as opposed to religious superstitions dating from antiquity, then you need to explain why circumcision isn't medical best practice here in the UK: either the medical argument is a red-herring excuse for those intent on maintaining barbaric religious traditions or else medical standards here in the UK are inadequate by not aggressively advocating circumcision.
Already explained - see #241 and #333. Also as I pointed out policy decisions are made based on ethical and political considerations so medical policies are not as black and white as you want to paint it. If you want to argue it as an "either or" situation, that's up to you - I don't accept your premise that it is an either or situation. If you don't want to accept the arguments I have made, that's also up to you. I don't accept your "either or" arguments for the reasons I have given.
-
Already explained - see #241 and #333. Also as I pointed out policy decisions are made based on ethical and political considerations so medical policies are not as black and white as you want to paint it. If you want to argue it as an "either or" situation, that's up to you - I don't accept your premise that it is an either or situation. If you don't want to accept the arguments I have made, that's also up to you. I don't accept your "either or" arguments for the reasons I have given.
No I don't accept his "all or nothing" or " either , or " arguments either.
-
Abortion is elective, i.e. a matter of choice by an individual capable of making it.
Typically circumcision, just in case you missed it, isn't.
With your customary obtuseness "those to whom it matters" are not given a say in the matter. If people wish to hack bits off bodies for the most ridiculous and spurious of pseudo-reasons they are, if competent and consenting, free to practice upon themselves.
Not others.
Well this is elective by parents.
-
It's about an individuals freedom, within certain bounds to decide and act on their own conscience.
Agreed. I had the freedom to decide whether to be circumcised or not. Unfortunately, had my parents been snip happy when I was a baby, I would not have that freedom. There is no justification for circumcision without the circumcisee's consent except for medical reasons and that is the end of the argument.
-
No I don't accept his "all or nothing" or " either , or " arguments either.
Well there's a surprise.
-
Well this is elective by parents.
Is there some sort of mental block you have which renders you unable to distinguish between 'my body; my choice' and 'someone else's body; their choice' or what?
-
Is there some sort of mental block you have which renders you unable to distinguish between 'my body; my choice' and 'someone else's body; their choice' or what?
No, parents have a right to decide this is for their sons. If they want.
It's the law.
-
Well this is elective by parents.
The parents don't own the penis.
-
No, parents have a right to decide this is for their sons. If they want.
It's the law.
Legally they do, morally they don't.
-
No, parents have a right to decide this is for their sons.
It's the law.
Then change the law.
Various places have - more need to do so.
-
The parents don't own the penis.
But they do have the right to decide this is best for their son, and the law backs them up.
-
Because the medical authorities don't think the benefits are sufficient to force every boy in the country to be circumcised and so they leave the choice to parents to make up their own minds.
Hence those who decide they want it for their sons can get it done.
The alternative would be to make it illegal and then it would be done backstreet, like abortions used to be. In unsanitary conditions.
Isn't it better to allow those to whom it matters to, get on with it? Because at least it can be done by a professional in hygienic conditions, with proper medical care?
Therefore presumably you now accept that there is no medical case to argue that all newborns should be routinely circumcised and that circumcising newborns should only occur where there is a clinical need that is specific to each individual child - yes?
On your last point I say no: it is better not to circumcise newborns at all unless there is a clinical need on a case-by-case basis. Some things belong in the past, and the routine mutilation of newborns is one of them. If we ever get to the stage when the authorities have the balls to tackle this kind of child abuse based on ancient superstitions then perhaps this might encourage those who support this to consider both the implications of doing it and the relevance of fallacious arguments from tradition and authority.
Time we left this kind of routine barbarism where it belongs: which is in the past. That the institution of marriage has been separated from religious tradition shows that these traditions aren't immune to social change.
-
Then change the law.
Various places have - more need to do so.
No, we don't need the law changed.
-
But they do have the right to decide this is best for their son, and the law backs them up.
Then we need to change the law.
-
But they do have the right to decide this is best for their son, and the law backs them up.
Depends on the country; and given that the sphere of individual rights widens by the year coupled with the hugely welcome but often agonisingly slow death of religious belief, this situation will not stand for much longer.
-
Therefore presumably you now accept that there is no medical case to argue that all newborns should be routinely circumcised and that circumcising newborns should only occur where there is a clinical need that is specific to each individual child - yes?
On your last point I say no: it is better noot to circumcise newborns at all unless there is a clinal need on a case-by-case basis. Some things belong in the past, and the routine mutilation of newborns is one of them. If we ever get to the stage when the authorities have the balls to tackle this kind of child abuse based on ancient superstitions then perhaps this might encourage those who support this to consider both the implications of doing it and the relevance of fallacious arguments from tradition and authority.
Time we left this kind of routine barbarism where it belongs: which is in the past. That the institution of marriage has been separated from religious tradition shows that these traditions aren't immune to social change.
You won't get any support for what is a thinly veiled attack on an ethnic group!
-
No, we don't need the law changed.
Yes, we do.
-
Depends on the country; and given that the sphere of individual rights widens by the year coupled with the hugely welcome but often agonisingly slow death of religious belief, this situation will not stand for much longer.
It will if people respect human rights and others choice to practice their religion.
-
You won't get any support for what is a thinly veiled attack on an ethnic group!
Which ethnic group are you waving the flag for in particular?
-
It will if people respect human rights and others choice to practice their religion.
I respect the first and not the latter - a human right being the right to bodily integrity, as well as freedom from (someone else's) religion.
If they are in conflict, then fuck religion.
-
But they do have the right to decide this is best for their son,
No they don't.
If you decide, for example that it is best for your child to keep them in a broom cupboard, throw them down the stairs regularly or feed them nothing but bread and water, you'll soon find that your rights are significantly constrained by British law.
You need to accept that children are people too and they usually grow up to be adults. Morally, if not legally, you do not have the right to do things to them that are not in their own best interests. Children are not your toys to indulge your fantasies on.
and the law backs them up.
The law is wrong on this occasion.
-
No, we don't need the law changed.
We do if we want to stop newborns being irreversibly mutilated to comply with ancient religious superstitious that, in time, these newborns might not share. Then there is the wider social issue of where or not circumcision solely for religious or cultural reasons, without there being any immediate medical need for the procedure, is tantamount to child abuse.
I think the case can be argued that it is child abuse, so it will be interesting to see how the case in Nottingham turns out.
-
Which ethnic group are you waving the flag for in particular?
You are not THAT dense.
Pull the other one!
-
It will if people respect human rights and others choice to practice their religion.
If people respected human rights, this would be a non issue, because nobody would hack bits off their babies.
-
No they don't.
If you decide, for example that it is best for your child to keep them in a broom cupboard, throw them down the stairs regularly or feed them nothing but bread and water, you'll soon find that your rights are significantly constrained by British law.
You need to accept that children are people too and they usually grow up to be adults. Morally, if not legally, you do not have the right to do things to them that are not in their own best interests. Children are not your toys to indulge your fantasies on.
The law is wrong on this occasion.
No the law is able to see the difference between your examples, you obviously can't.
-
You need to accept that children are people too and they usually grow up to be adults.
This is the heart of it, surely - genital mutilation persists not merely because of asinine superstitions but because of a prevailing belief that children are chattels of those who produce/create them - things upon which or to which things are done when it can be got away with.
-
If people respected human rights, this would be a non issue, because nobody would hack bits off their babies.
This, this and this again.
-
No the law is able to see the difference between your examples, you obviously can't.
The law constrains your alleged right to throw your children down the stairs. It constrains your right to cut pieces off your child's genitals if your child is a girl. It's a small step to banning male circumcision.
There is absolutely no moral justification for your position. Your argument seems to be "well people have always done it". The same argument can be applied to FGM and other things like slavery. It's bullshit and you should know it.
-
The law constrains your alleged right to throw your children down the stairs. It constrains your right to cup pieces off your child's genitals if your child is a girl. It's a small step veto banning male circumcision.
There is absolutely no moral justification for your position. Your argument seems to be "well people have always done it". The same argument can be applied to FGM and other things like slavery. It's bullshit and you should know it.
You are wrong on several counts
-
I think the case can be argued that it is child abuse, so it will be interesting to see how the case in Nottingham turns out.
Indeed. I'm hopeful that in the current climate this will be seen for the child abuse that it is and charges brought. No gambler I, but I'd be tempted to put money on it.
-
You are wrong on several counts
List them. I could do with a laugh.
-
You are wrong on several counts
I notice you are completely unable to name any of the counts. Give it up. You are wrong.
-
A ban on circumcision in Germany has shocked the nation's Jews and Muslims. The right of parents to make decisions for their children is now under the spotlight.
A court ruling in Germany effectively banning circumcision has united Jews and Muslims in anger - and they are backed by the country's main medical association.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18793842
Note:
The are backed by the countries main medical association.
-
A ban on circumcision in Germany has shocked the nation's Jews and Muslims
So fucking what?
-
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2012/06/26/german-court-declares-judaism-a-crime/
-
I'm someone who favours tolerating religious and spiritual practices, however illogical. If some island people think that tourists should keep their kit on while visiting a sacred site then it doesn't hurt to respect that, there are a squillion other places to get your kit off.
But cutting bits off babies? Really? That should be respected?
-
I'm someone who favours tolerating religious and spiritual practices, however illogical. If some island people think that tourists should keep their kit on while visiting a sacred site then it doesn't hurt to respect that, there are a squillion other places to get your kit off.
But cutting bits off babies? Really? That should be respected?
No. Stop respecting insane shit foisted on those who didn't ask for insane shit.
The momentum of lack of respect for insane shit foisted on those who didn't ask for insane shit will take care of it eventually.
Insane shit (Rhiannon's 'illogical') is fine. It can, at best, add charm and colour and interest to the species.
Insane shit forced upon someone who can't opt out is when I tend to start to become somewhat radgy.
-
Agreed. I had the freedom to decide whether to be circumcised or not. Unfortunately, had my parents been snip happy when I was a baby, I would not have that freedom. There is no justification for circumcision without the circumcisee's consent except for medical reasons and that is the end of the argument.
Agreed.
Outlawing infant circumcision (except for medical reasons) doesn't prevent anyone from being circumcised if they so choose. It would prevent many people being unable to choose not to be circumcised.
-
Actually opting to choose circumcision as an adult sends a powerful message about a man's choice and faith. Isn't that preferable anyway?
-
Actually opting to choose circumcision as an adult sends a powerful message about a man's choice and faith. Isn't that preferable anyway?
Apparently not.
Apparently it's such a good thing that it has to be pressed upon those who not only didn't ask for it but cannot do so.
This is OK with some people, apparently.
-
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2012/06/26/german-court-declares-judaism-a-crime/
How is banning circumcision of babies banning Judaism?
-
No. Stop respecting insane shit foisted on those who didn't ask for insane shit.
Observe the question mark. It really makes s difference to how you read Rhiannon's post.
-
How is banning circumcision of babies banning Judaism?
I feel I can help you there.
It isn't.
-
Observe the question mark. It really makes s difference to how you read Rhiannon's post.
You've a different interpretation to me.
Mine was 'fuck that shit, no way'.
Your mileage of course may differ.
-
You've a different interpretation to me.
Mine was 'fuck that shit, no way'.
Your mileage of course may differ.
"That should be respected."
"That should be respected?"
The first is a statement, the second is a question. The first is an endorsement of circumcision, the second is questioning the idea that we should respect cutting bits off babies for religious reasons.
-
There is one other factor influencing the rate of circumcision in the USA which I don't think has been mentioned. And this is profoundly affected by culture.
It is a nice little earner.
Of course American clinicians would enthuse about the health benefits of mutilating little boys - the practice pays for their holidays (or whatever).
Yes... And I would add that in America, logical, reasoned, fact-backed arguments detailing why circumcison should not be practiced on minors will make NO headway, particularly since many hearing these arguments are circumcised males who do not wish to reimagine themselves as sexually mutilated victims of a primitive ritual -- ("MY John Thomas works just fine for that purpose, thank you!)
8)
-
"That should be respected."
"That should be respected?"
The first is a statement, the second is a question.
A rhetorical one. In the latter case I thought the "Bollocks to that" was pretty clearly implied, not least on the basis of Rhiannon's previous contributions to the thread.
-
It's just child abuse, isn't it? Well, child abuse has been justified through the ages.
-
One presumes the foreskin is there to protect the tip of the penis. Or did god create it especially so a baby would suffer pain, and possibly infection, when it was hacked off?
-
How is banning circumcision of babies banning Judaism?
It's not. Neither is it necessary becsuse according to the scriptures the Jews didn't circumcise during the exodus.
-
No. Stop respecting insane shit foisted on those who didn't ask for insane shit.
Oh the irony.
Maybe the order should go. Judaism drops circumcision...Secular Humanism, sundry atheism, naturalistic pantheism drops it's Stalinism.
-
Oh the irony.
Maybe the order should go. Judaism drops circumcision...Secular Humanism, sundry atheism, naturalistic pantheism drops it's Stalinism.
You don't half say some daft things, which give the impression you are high on something most of the time! :o
-
When I was a kid, circumcision was pretty standard for all kids, nothing to do with Judaism. Just normal child abuse.
-
When I was a kid, circumcision was pretty standard for all kids, nothing to do with Judaism. Just normal child abuse.
Really?it was uncommon when I was a kid
-
When I was a kid, circumcision was pretty standard for all kids, nothing to do with Judaism. Just normal child abuse.
Although my husband, who is three years older than me, was circumcised, none of my male cousins of whom I have quite a number, were done as far as I am aware.
-
Although my husband, who is three years older than me, was circumcised, none of my male cousins of whom I have quite a number, were done as far as I am aware.
"Done" makes them sound as if they had a quick trip to the vets :o
-
"Done" makes them sound as if they had a quick trip to the vets :o
Ehhhhhh?
-
Although my husband, who is three years older than me, was circumcised, none of my male cousins of whom I have quite a number, were done as far as I am aware.
Yes, my 'all' is wrong. I was surprised when I looked at stats, about 1 in 3 boys leading up to the war, then it reduced after the war. People became more aware of abuse towards children. But I knew tons of non-Jewish kids who were cut, that was my point.
-
Really?it was uncommon when I was a kid
I was circumcised when I was probably 7 or 8 years old, presumably just after the NHS was formed.(I was born in 1941). At that time it was a reasonably common medical procedure, but in the 1950s attitudes towards circumcision changed, and numbers reduced significantly.
-
"Done" makes them sound as if they had a quick trip to the vets :o
YES YES LOL ?!!?!?!?!!?? ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
There's a story that Diana refused to have Harry and William cut, as presumably she realized how cruel and abusive it is. However, it seems pretty impossible to check this story, like many about the royals. Also suggestions that Queen Victoria started it for royal males, in the belief that it would stop masturbation. Don't you believe it.
-
I was circumcised when I was probably 7 or 8 years old, presumably just after the NHS was formed.(I was born in 1941). At that time it was a reasonably common medical procedure, but in the 1950s attitudes towards circumcision changed, and numbers reduced significantly.
IIRC there was a now famous, long and detailed paper submitted to the BMJ (Lancet? Something like that) in the late 40s or early 50s by a doctor named (also IIRC) Gardiner on the function of the foreskin which almost single-handedly helped to halt circumcision in Britain.
ETA: It was Douglas Gairdner [sic] and it was 1949 - a year after the founding of the NHS.
-
http://www.cirp.org/library/general/gairdner/
-
http://www.cirp.org/library/general/gairdner/
I could have posted the link too.
I'm not sure why you did so - do you imagine it bolsters your position as an apologist for enforced genital mutilation?
-
I could have posted the link too.
I'm not sure why you did so - do you imagine it bolsters your position as an apologist for enforced genital mutilation?
No, I just went and looked it up, I was surprised you didn't put up the link.
I'm reading it at the moment, but other studies have been done since. 1940's is a while ago.
Do you have an issue with me reading through items you put up?
-
Not in the slightest. I'm just registering my surprise that you post links against your "case", that's all.
-
That's a very interesting link.
-
Here is another link
Male circumcision: a scientific perspective
http://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/30/3/241.1.full.pdf
-
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/even-in-israel-more-and-more-parents-choose-not-to-circumcise-their-sons-1.436421
-
Here is another link
Male circumcision: a scientific perspective
http://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/30/3/241.1.full.pdf
"This simple procedure is a lifesaver." But then, in Sub-Saharan Africa so would enhanced levels of personal hygiene.
-
Where water is scarce.
-
Do you know where Sub-Saharan Africa is?
-
It is the Sahara where water is scarce.
-
Here is another link
Male circumcision: a scientific perspective
http://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/30/3/241.1.full.pdf
Interesting that you did not chose to post the balancing ant-circumcision article quoted in the first paragraph.
Note too this article is from 2004 - things have moved on significantly.
Nothing in this persuades me of any health benefit that outweigh medical risks. And that is the elephant in the room - although people often glibly refer to neonatal circumcision as simple and safe the risks aren't zero.
http://www.academia.edu/6394940/Lost_Boys_An_Estimate_of_U.S._Circumcision-Related_Infant_Deaths
This article should pull people up short. For every 100,000 circumcisions there are about 250 incidences of complications and about 9 deaths - yes that's right 9 baby boys dead due to complications from circumcision. And this study is in the USA so a first world developed country with high quality medical care. Every one of those deaths is entirely preventable.
So you need to be convinced of stunning health benefits to justify those 9 deaths. So let's look at those - there tend to be three areas typically cited. HIV transmission, penile cancer and cervical cancer in women partners. Remember we are talking about circumcision here in the UK not in sub-Saharan Africa where there may be some value.
So let's assume all baby boys born this year (about 350,000) are circumcised - what would be the effect.
1. HIV transmission - the only effect reported in observational studies is on infection of men in heterosexual relationships - there is no effect on homosexual sex or on women becoming infected in heterosexual relationships. And even then most recent studies imply this effect to be largely due to cultural effect other than circumcision.
But let's work with a 50% reduction - annually in the UK across the whole population about 1500-2000 men become infected with HIV due to heterosexual sex. So that might equate to 8 less people contracting HIV - note that HIV is now readily manageable with just 600 people dying of AIDS-related illness last year. Also HIV transmission rates are falling in the heterosexual population and have been for years. Finally about 95% of the new infections were from unprotected sex - wearing a condom almost totally eradicates transmission - so much, much more effective than circumcision.
2. Penile cancer - issue is that penile cancer is ver rare - so the balancing article indicates that 300,000 cicumcisions would be required to reduce penile cancer incidence by just 1 - that's one diagnosis not one death.
3. Cervical cancer due to human papilloma virus infection - sounds compelling (bar the medical ethics issue or elective surgery on a non consenting patient that does not benefit them but does benefit others). Ah but there is a problem - all girls aged 12 and 13 in the UK are now routinely immunised against human papilloma virus. So there is unlikely to be any benefit due to improvement in medical treatment.
So to summarise - were we to circumcise all baby boys in the UK born this year the health effects would be:
300 cases of circumcision rated complications this year
30 deaths of baby boys due to circumcision rated complications this year
Possibly 8 fewer HIV infections in perhaps 20-40 years time (but medical treatment may have moved on so perhaps much less)
Possibly one less case of penile cancer in perhaps 40-70 years time (but medical treatment may have moved on so perhaps much less)
Likely no change in cervical cancer in perhaps 40-70 years time as immunisation is now routine
And that's without bringing in the loss of penile function and detrimental effect on sexual health.
So no there aren't compelling health arguments - and those that make them need to recognise that if they argue for universal infant circumcision in the UK then they are arguing for about 30 dead baby boys a year that died needlessly.
-
... and that's what you get when a scientist who is also a statistics wonk gets on the case :)
-
Interesting that you did not chose to post the balancing ant-circumcision article quoted in the first paragraph.
Note too this article is from 2004 - things have moved on significantly.
Nothing in this persuades me of any health benefit that outweigh medical risks. And that is the elephant in the room - although people often glibly refer to neonatal circumcision as simple and safe the risks aren't zero.
http://www.academia.edu/6394940/Lost_Boys_An_Estimate_of_U.S._Circumcision-Related_Infant_Deaths
This article should pull people up short. For every 100,000 circumcisions there are about 250 incidences of complications and about 9 deaths - yes that's right 9 baby boys dead due to complications from circumcision. And this study is in the USA so a first world developed country with high quality medical care. Every one of those deaths is entirely preventable.
So you need to be convinced of stunning health benefits to justify those 9 deaths. So let's look at those - there tend to be three areas typically cited. HIV transmission, penile cancer and cervical cancer in women partners. Remember we are talking about circumcision here in the UK not in sub-Saharan Africa where there may be some value.
So let's assume all baby boys born this year (about 350,000) are circumcised - what would be the effect.
1. HIV transmission - the only effect reported in observational studies is on infection of men in heterosexual relationships - there is no effect on homosexual sex or on women becoming infected in heterosexual relationships. And even then most recent studies imply this effect to be largely due to cultural effect other than circumcision.
But let's work with a 50% reduction - annually in the UK across the whole population about 1500-2000 men become infected with HIV due to heterosexual sex. So that might equate to 8 less people contracting HIV - note that HIV is now readily manageable with just 600 people dying of AIDS-related illness last year. Also HIV transmission rates are falling in the heterosexual population and have been for years. Finally about 95% of the new infections were from unprotected sex - wearing a condom almost totally eradicates transmission - so much, much more effective than circumcision.
2. Penile cancer - issue is that penile cancer is ver rare - so the balancing article indicates that 300,000 cicumcisions would be required to reduce penile cancer incidence by just 1 - that's one diagnosis not one death.
3. Cervical cancer due to human papilloma virus infection - sounds compelling (bar the medical ethics issue or elective surgery on a non consenting patient that does not benefit them but does benefit others). Ah but there is a problem - all girls aged 12 and 13 in the UK are now routinely immunised against human papilloma virus. So there is unlikely to be any benefit due to improvement in medical treatment.
So to summarise - were we to circumcise all baby boys in the UK born this year the health effects would be:
300 cases of circumcision rated complications this year
30 deaths of baby boys due to circumcision rated complications this year
Possibly 8 fewer HIV infections in perhaps 20-40 years time (but medical treatment may have moved on so perhaps much less)
Possibly one less case of penile cancer in perhaps 40-70 years time (but medical treatment may have moved on so perhaps much less)
Likely no change in cervical cancer in perhaps 40-70 years time as immunisation is now routine
And that's without bringing in the loss of penile function and detrimental effect on sexual health.
So no there aren't compelling health arguments - and those that make them need to recognise that if they argue for universal infant circumcision in the UK then they are arguing for about 30 dead baby boys a year that died needlessly.
It would appear banning infant circumcision, apart from medical necessity, is the way to go.
-
It would appear banning infant circumcision, apart from medical necessity, is the way to go.
Other countries have grasped the nettle, so it can be done.
-
It would appear banning infant circumcision, apart from medical necessity, is the way to go.
Strange how the advocates fail to tell you about the 9 actual deaths per 100,000, while waxing lyrical about marginal and hypothetical/theoretical health benefits decades down the line.
The HIV stuff is very interesting as most of the evidence comes from studies that have looked at associations between circumcision rates and HIV infection rates in various countries. And association does not mean causation and there are potentially significant additional cultural differences that may play a role.
More careful cohort studies conducted more recently in single areas (most notably Rwanda) where other cultural differences can be minimised have failed to demonstrate similar findings - indeed one study found significantly greater infection rates in the circumcised group.
-
It is the Sahara where water is scarce.
No Floo (and also Robinson who started this particular hare running). It is not. It is the whole of the rest of the African land mass which lies south of the Sahara Desert down to the Cape of Good Hope. It includes savannah and rain forest. It is a huge area - why not check it out in Wikipedia?
-
No Floo (and also Robinson who started this particular hare running). It is not. It is the whole of the rest of the African land mass which lies south of the Sahara Desert down to the Cape of Good Hope. It includes savannah and rain forest. It is a huge area - why not check it out in Wikipedia?
I may be wrong but I read Floo's post as saying that water is scarce in the Sahara as opposed to sub Saharan Africa, and effectively agreeing with you.
-
Yes she was agreeing.
Sorry about my bad.
-
Oh, I see. Well, that may be the case - if so, Floo I apologise.
However, that interpretation would be out of context with my point which was with the Australian (presumably gynaecologist) who wrote the 2004 paper which Rose referenced. He was delivering "statistics" about Sub-Saharan Africa, arguing that circumcision would reduce the incidence of HIV infection. Hence my comment:
"This simple procedure is a lifesaver." But then, in Sub-Saharan Africa so would enhanced levels of personal hygiene.
Robinson replied, misunderstanding the area concerned, and Floo's comment seemed to agree with her. There is plenty of water in most of the area concerned.
-
Interesting that you did not chose to post the balancing ant-circumcision article quoted in the first paragraph.
Note too this article is from 2004 - things have moved on significantly.
Nothing in this persuades me of any health benefit that outweigh medical risks. And that is the elephant in the room - although people often glibly refer to neonatal circumcision as simple and safe the risks aren't zero.
http://www.academia.edu/6394940/Lost_Boys_An_Estimate_of_U.S._Circumcision-Related_Infant_Deaths
This article should pull people up short. For every 100,000 circumcisions there are about 250 incidences of complications and about 9 deaths - yes that's right 9 baby boys dead due to complications from circumcision. And this study is in the USA so a first world developed country with high quality medical care. Every one of those deaths is entirely preventable.
So you need to be convinced of stunning health benefits to justify those 9 deaths. So let's look at those - there tend to be three areas typically cited. HIV transmission, penile cancer and cervical cancer in women partners. Remember we are talking about circumcision here in the UK not in sub-Saharan Africa where there may be some value.
So let's assume all baby boys born this year (about 350,000) are circumcised - what would be the effect.
1. HIV transmission - the only effect reported in observational studies is on infection of men in heterosexual relationships - there is no effect on homosexual sex or on women becoming infected in heterosexual relationships. And even then most recent studies imply this effect to be largely due to cultural effect other than circumcision.
But let's work with a 50% reduction - annually in the UK across the whole population about 1500-2000 men become infected with HIV due to heterosexual sex. So that might equate to 8 less people contracting HIV - note that HIV is now readily manageable with just 600 people dying of AIDS-related illness last year. Also HIV transmission rates are falling in the heterosexual population and have been for years. Finally about 95% of the new infections were from unprotected sex - wearing a condom almost totally eradicates transmission - so much, much more effective than circumcision.
2. Penile cancer - issue is that penile cancer is ver rare - so the balancing article indicates that 300,000 cicumcisions would be required to reduce penile cancer incidence by just 1 - that's one diagnosis not one death.
3. Cervical cancer due to human papilloma virus infection - sounds compelling (bar the medical ethics issue or elective surgery on a non consenting patient that does not benefit them but does benefit others). Ah but there is a problem - all girls aged 12 and 13 in the UK are now routinely immunised against human papilloma virus. So there is unlikely to be any benefit due to improvement in medical treatment.
So to summarise - were we to circumcise all baby boys in the UK born this year the health effects would be:
300 cases of circumcision rated complications this year
30 deaths of baby boys due to circumcision rated complications this year
Possibly 8 fewer HIV infections in perhaps 20-40 years time (but medical treatment may have moved on so perhaps much less)
Possibly one less case of penile cancer in perhaps 40-70 years time (but medical treatment may have moved on so perhaps much less)
Likely no change in cervical cancer in perhaps 40-70 years time as immunisation is now routine
And that's without bringing in the loss of penile function and detrimental effect on sexual health.
So no there aren't compelling health arguments - and those that make them need to recognise that if they argue for universal infant circumcision in the UK then they are arguing for about 30 dead baby boys a year that died needlessly.
2004 is more up to date the 1940's, interesting that you didn't pick up on that.
-
No Floo (and also Robinson who started this particular hare running). It is not. It is the whole of the rest of the African land mass which lies south of the Sahara Desert down to the Cape of Good Hope. It includes savannah and rain forest. It is a huge area - why not check it out in Wikipedia?
I was agreeing with you HH!
-
2004 is more up to date the 1940's, interesting that you didn't pick up on that.
Absolutely true.
But then 2010 is more up to date than 2004.
Why are you so aggressively in favour of male genital mutilation, Rose? My observation (and I suppose experience) of prepuce removal is that it was an almost totally female activity. Women conspired with women - mothers and midwives. Does your stance come from being a woman?
I would be interested in seeing a comparison in the number of such mutilations between home births and hospital births in, say, the late 1940s. After all, in hospitals there were doctors around who may have been unhappy about midwives practising surgery.
-
The idea of others forcing their viewpoints on other people disturbs me, mainly because it doesn't seem to have any reasoning behind it, other than a desire to force something on everyone.
Now that can be a ban on male circumcision or its opposite, of circumcision being forced on babies even when the parents are totally against it.
There seems to be a lot of cases around where parents have requested it not be done, and the medical profession has done it anyway.
Of people being harassed and told up scare stories so they conform.
Although you all think I am in favour of it, in many ways you are wrong, what I am in favour of is being allowed a different POV and being listened too.
Not " everyone male has to be circumcised no matter what"
Because a lot of you see things in black and white, there is no middle ground for you.
But there is for me.
I'm not into forcing anyone to do anything, my opinion is my own, but that's all it is.
I'm a believer in the choice being left to parents, even in some cases vaccinations, it all comes down to risk.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3336455/Secret-report-reveals-18-child-deaths-following-vaccinations.html
There is more chance of your baby coming to harm in a car crash, doesn't stop us driving though, when babies are small.
For some people the tiny risk involved in male circumcision is worth it.
I never had my boys circumcised because as I said, I'm not so much for it as I am more opposed to things being forced on people. It could be forcing values on someone else like vegetarianism, veganism, or even eating meat.
I'm as opposed to male circumcision becoming standard practice as I am forcing everyone to live by non religious standards.
Those who think it is important should be free to make up their own minds and live by their values and those that don't like it, should be free to live by theirs.
We all risk babies and children by driving a car, but because we want to get around we consider it an acceptable risk ( until it happens).
So we all participate in decisions that have a small risk, every day.
How many people drive quickly around 30 mph places where children play?
How many of us, " take risks" because we don't believe it will happen to us?
Lots of people do.
How many drive over the speed limits? Take chances? A baby could be in the car that gets hit as a result.
There are lots of things people do now that could reduce the mortality rate in children, but they don't do it.
Much easier to target others, point the finger and say..... look what that group is doing to endanger children, what a bunch of superstition barbaric religious people.
As they jump in their car and drive like a bat out of hell, dealing with other road users with impatience, taking risks, or using their mobile phone while hammering around a residential area.
I think we need to keep male circumcision in the very small numbers it would be performed (in those that want their sons circumcised) and concentrate on our own lives where driving our cars slowly could make a huge difference to child mortality rates.
-
Should we allow parents to have their young children tattooed because they wish it?
-
Floo has beat me to it.
The nub of your argument appears to hinge around a view that the parents of a baby boy will always act in his best interest and they should not be prevented from doing so. Therefore, if they think that mutilating his penis is in his best interest they should be permitted to do so.
If follows, therefore, using precisely the same logic, the parents of a little girl should have the freedom to have her external genitals mutilated if they think it is in her best interests.
Had your parents, believing it to be in your best interests, at the age of two days had the words "mild" and "bitter" tattooed on your chest just below your nipples, they should have been free to do so.
Your comparison of genital mutilation with vaccination is a poor one. There is a clear clinical argument for vaccination. Even if the child will never be exposed to whatever disease is involved, the population in general acquires "herd immunity". It is done for the greater good of the community.
For your information - I would not have wanted to suffer any kind of mutilation at birth. It was not a parental decision anyway - my father was away at WW II. It was my mother simply following the fashion. There was no clinical imperative, it was just what her friends had done, in collusion with a willing midwife. It didn't even qualify as "informed consent". I have carried the sign of that decision and have suffered the physiological consequences of penile mutilation for the whole of my life. With your approval.
-
2004 is more up to date the 1940's, interesting that you didn't pick up on that.
What are you on about? Where did I post anything from 1940.
My study on death rates following infant circumcision was from 2010.
And when I said 2004 was some while ago I was talking about research on HIV transmission and circumcision which has moved on significantly since then, with the evidence based much less clear cut than it was. Increasingly the very clear differences in the early observational studies are being demonstrated causally to be more associated with compounding cultural/societal differences (most obviously between muslim and christian cultural groups) and less to do with circumcision per se.
-
The idea of others forcing their viewpoints on other people disturbs me,
But that is exactly what you are arguing for, not us - you do see that don't you. You do understand that a parent and a child are not the same person.
Unlike most of us here you are arguing that one person (in this case a parent) should be able to force their view on another person (their child).
-
HH, I've been following your story with interest and sadness. My feeling - and I may be wrong - is that it was down to the power of the midwives. I have seen mums even today convinced of all kinds of shit by midwives, especially first time around when you are scared and unsure - they are almost godlike. I'm not exaggerating when I say that the woman who 'looked after' me made me feel like the most shit mother because I couldn't live up to her standards (i.e. deliver naturally and breastfeed). I guess women who fought against getting their boys 'done' back in the day had the same kind of pressures.
It doesn't excuse any of it. I don't get it and I'm glad it doesn't happen now. I'm sorry, HH.
-
2004 is more up to date the 1940's, interesting that you didn't pick up on that.
What relevance has this to Prof D's post?
-
The idea of others forcing their viewpoints on other people disturbs me, mainly because it doesn't seem to have any reasoning behind it, other than a desire to force something on everyone.
Now that can be a ban on male circumcision or its opposite, of circumcision being forced on babies even when the parents are totally against it.
There seems to be a lot of cases around where parents have requested it not be done, and the medical profession has done it anyway.
Of people being harassed and told up scare stories so they conform.
Although you all think I am in favour of it, in many ways you are wrong, what I am in favour of is being allowed a different POV and being listened too.
Not " everyone male has to be circumcised no matter what"
Because a lot of you see things in black and white, there is no middle ground for you.
But there is for me.
I'm not into forcing anyone to do anything, my opinion is my own, but that's all it is.
I'm a believer in the choice being left to parents, even in some cases vaccinations, it all comes down to risk.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3336455/Secret-report-reveals-18-child-deaths-following-vaccinations.html
There is more chance of your baby coming to harm in a car crash, doesn't stop us driving though, when babies are small.
For some people the tiny risk involved in male circumcision is worth it.
I never had my boys circumcised because as I said, I'm not so much for it as I am more opposed to things being forced on people. It could be forcing values on someone else like vegetarianism, veganism, or even eating meat.
I'm as opposed to male circumcision becoming standard practice as I am forcing everyone to live by non religious standards.
Those who think it is important should be free to make up their own minds and live by their values and those that don't like it, should be free to live by theirs.
We all risk babies and children by driving a car, but because we want to get around we consider it an acceptable risk ( until it happens).
So we all participate in decisions that have a small risk, every day.
How many people drive quickly around 30 mph places where children play?
How many of us, " take risks" because we don't believe it will happen to us?
Lots of people do.
How many drive over the speed limits? Take chances? A baby could be in the car that gets hit as a result.
There are lots of things people do now that could reduce the mortality rate in children, but they don't do it.
Much easier to target others, point the finger and say..... look what that group is doing to endanger children, what a bunch of superstition barbaric religious people.
As they jump in their car and drive like a bat out of hell, dealing with other road users with impatience, taking risks, or using their mobile phone while hammering around a residential area.
I think we need to keep male circumcision in the very small numbers it would be performed (in those that want their sons circumcised) and concentrate on our own lives where driving our cars slowly could make a huge difference to child mortality rates.
This is no more than rambling fallacious nonsense.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3336455/Secret-report-reveals-18-child-deaths-following-vaccinations.html
Have you read that article and worked it through (even if is actually true).
So let's do the maths.
This article suggests 18 deaths over 4 years. Just about every child is vaccinated, so this is about 600,000 a year or 2.6 million over 4 years. So that's one death per 144,000 vaccinations approx.
Compare that with death rate for infant circumcision reported in the article I linked to, which was one death in every 11,000 circumcisions approx. which is 13 times greater risk of death.
But you also have to weigh against the benefits. The Telegraph article indicates that vaccinations save 66 lives due to prevention of death due to measles and meningitis C - that's 264 lives saved over a four year period compared to potentially 18 deaths due to adverse reactions. While you never want any deaths due to adverse reactions (and I'm sure there is continuous improvement to improve safety) that remains a significant net positive in terms of lives saved.
Compare that with the 13 times higher risk of death from circumcision with effectively zero gain (see my earlier post in terms of health benefit in a country such as the UK.
-
How many people drive quickly around 30 mph places where children play?
How many drive over the speed limits?
But the whole point is that these people are breaking the law, and they should be legally held to account for their unlawful and risky behaviour.
The equivalent situation would be if circumcision (also harmful and risk and performed with the consent of the person being circumcised) were illegal but some people chose to ignore the law and continued to engage in behaviour that put their child at risk.
-
An informative article, without looking at every link posted on this thread I don't think this one has been posted before:-
http://www.cirp.org/library/death/
This is a really horrific exposition of a practice considered to be 'as old as Africa':-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/25/male-circumcision-ceremonies-death-deformity-africa
-
But the whole point is that these people are breaking the law, and they should be legally held to account for their unlawful and risky behaviour.
The equivalent situation would be if circumcision (also harmful and risk and performed with the consent of the person being circumcised) were illegal but some people chose to ignore the law and continued to engage in behaviour that put their child at risk.
It's a ludicrous comparison anyway. You can't say 'x people do risky things so it's ok for y people to do risky things too'.
-
It's a ludicrous comparison anyway. You can't say 'x people do risky things so it's ok for y people to do risky things too'.
Quite.
But Rose's argument goes further - in effect it is 'people x engage in risk behaviour and are breaking the law so lets allow the risky behaviour of people y to be legal'.
And the death rates for circumcision and road traffic accidents don't come close.
As pointed out previously the datas suggest one death per 11,000 child circumcised.
The most recent data (2015) that I can find indicates 50 deaths in road traffic accidents for children under 15. That's about 12 million children - so a fatality rate of one death per 245,000 children approx. So circumcision is about 22 times riskier in terms of likelihood of death than road traffic accidents.
-
This link is interesting, it's written by someone Jewish and goes into the history and why an attack on male circumcision is seen as an attack on Judaism.
I think that deals with it quite compassionately and I think changes in attitude to circumcision needs to come within the Jewish community itself.
http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/goodman1999/
I don't feel people stomping around, claiming Judaism is barbaric and backwards, is at all helpful.
-
This is no more than rambling fallacious nonsense.
Sigh!
:-\
-
Absolutely true.
But then 2010 is more up to date than 2004.
Why are you so aggressively in favour of male genital mutilation, Rose? My observation (and I suppose experience) of prepuce removal is that it was an almost totally female activity. Women conspired with women - mothers and midwives. Does your stance come from being a woman?
I would be interested in seeing a comparison in the number of such mutilations between home births and hospital births in, say, the late 1940s. After all, in hospitals there were doctors around who may have been unhappy about midwives practising surgery.
I'm not aggressively in favour of circumcisions.
I'm wary of the motivations of some people.
-
I'm not aggressively in favour of circumcisions.
You could have fooled us.
I'm wary of the motivations of some people.
And what is that, pray tell.
My motivation is entirely driven by a respect for autonomy - in other words that the decision to lop off the end of a penis should be the decision of the owner of that penis and them alone. That's what consent is all about.
-
I don't know anyone here who is against Judaism or anti religious freedom.
-
Sigh!
:-\
Indeed - your effort was a pitiful mix of nonsense.
-
I don't know anyone here who is against Judaism or anti religious freedom.
Quite - but we are talking about individual religious freedom and the most important individual in question here is the child, not the parent.
-
Quite - but we are talking about individual religious freedom and the most important individual in question here is the child, not the parent.
Of course. But Rose seems to think that we have an anti Jewish agenda. It' not the case. Anyone can raise their children in their faith and let them choose to be circumcised as adults, if that is their preference. Nothing wrong with that.
-
I don't know anyone here who is against Judaism or anti religious freedom.
I would say though that there's a - to me, fully and entirely justified - degree of criticism of religious freedom where that freedom allows for religion to be imposed on a non-consenting subject, as is the case with circumcision. It's a tribal mark of the parent's religion (sometimes only one of them - hence this thread), not of the subject himself (who is unable to give informed consent by virtue of not being old enough).
Ritual slaughter of animals is the other area where IMO religious freedom is too free.
-
I would say though that there's a - to me, fully and entirely justified - degree of criticism of religious freedom where that freedom allows for religion to be imposed on a non-consenting subject, as is the case with circumcsion. It's a tribal mark of the parent's religion, not of the subject himself (who is unable to give informed consent by virtue of not being old enough).
Ritual slaughter of animals is the other area where IMO religious freedom is too free.
But then shaker your agenda doesn't stop there with ritual slaughter, it extends into all sorts of areas.Hunting? Stopping people fishing?
Stop them eating meat?
I Hate to think what else, it wouldn't just stop with ritual slaughter.
No way would I support you on such a thing, because some people have different agendas to the ones they claim, the ones they can justify, I don't trust your motivations.
You obviously object to people passing on their religion to their children,but religion is about community and families, so you'd do a good job of splitting families too.
Ok some people object to circumcision purely based on humanitarian concerns, but many don't.
Yours would just be a stepping stone, to some weird sense of depriving a child inclusion of their parents religious community.
Next you would be claiming taking a child to church was child abuse.
-
I would say though that there's a - to me, fully and entirely justified - degree of criticism of religious freedom where that freedom allows for religion to be imposed on a non-consenting subject, as is the case with circumcsion. It's a tribal mark of the parent's religion, not of the subject himself (who is unable to give informed consent by virtue of not being old enough).
But this to me is not a desire to stop someone from having the freedom to practice their religion, but to prevent harm to a child.
I agree about the tribalism. It's easy to forget that one has been baptised as an infant. Not so circumcision.
-
But then shaker your agenda doesn't stop there, it extends into all sorts of areas.Hunting? Stopping people fishing?
Stop them eating meat?
There's no likelihood of that - the slaughter of animals will continue, unfortunately.
The best we can do is ensure that it's done as humanely as slaughter ever can be. It's quite possible to enact laws against ritual religious slaughter - it can be done, so it should be.
-
But then shaker your agenda doesn't stop there, it extends into all sorts of areas.Hunting? Stopping people fishing?
Stop them eating meat?
Hate to think what else, it wouldn't just stop with ritual slaughter.
No way would I support you on such a thing, because people have different agendas that the ones they can justify.
Some how come you obsession with freedom doesn't extend to the freedom to grow up with an intact penis.
-
But this to me is not a desire to stop someone from having the freedom to practice their religion, but to prevent harm to a child.
Correct - but in this case the usual whine about the freedom to practice a religion involves harm to a child.
-
Correct - but in this case the usual whine about the freedom to practice a religion involves harm to a child.
Exactly - there are always limits to freedoms, and this is just about the most obvious.
-
Some how come you obsession with freedom doesn't extend to the freedom to grow up with an intact penis.
It's odd. Rose has argued - quite rightly - for children to have the freedom to choose their own friends rather than their parents choose. Yet she doesn't support their freedom to have their penises left unmutilated.
-
This link is interesting, it's written by someone Jewish and goes into the history and why an attack on male circumcision is seen as an attack on Judaism.
I think that deals with it quite compassionately and I think changes in attitude to circumcision needs to come within the Jewish community itself.
http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/goodman1999/
I don't feel people stomping around, claiming Judaism is barbaric and backwards, is at all helpful.
A very insightful article, Rose, written by a Jewish doctor who has come to believe that infant circumcision is not necessary for religious or cultural reasons. Good for her taking the time to do the research and for being prepared to go public with her findings.
-
Some how come you obsession with freedom doesn't extend to the freedom to grow up with an intact penis.
Because it's part of their identity.
Only their parents can decide if it's important.
-
A very insightful article, Rose, written by a Jewish doctor who has come to believe that infant circumcision is not necessary for religious or cultural reasons. Good for her taking the time to do the research and for being prepared to go public with her findings.
Yes I thought it was a good article, explained a lot.
🙂
-
Because it's part of their identity.
Only their parents can decide if it's important.
So the child themselves can't make that decision for themselves?
-
Because it's part of their identity.
Surely that for them to decide.
Only their parents can decide if it's important.
Wrong - only the child can decide if it is important. That's what consent and autonomy are all about.
-
Indeed - your effort was a pitiful mix of nonsense.
And yours was to call someone else's religion " barbaric" in a judgmental way.
Instead of trying to understand both sides.
-
And yours was to call someone else's religion " barbaric" in a judgmental way.
Instead of trying to understand both sides.
Yep - mutilating little boys so as to conform to religious superstitions is barbaric: time it was stopped.
-
Surely that for them to decide.
Wrong - only the child can decide if it is important. That's what consent and autonomy are all about.
The child is too young to decide if it's important, so he is welcomed into his community anyway.
If people who believe it welcomes him into their community decide they should stop, then good for them.
But I won't be drawn into something that can be used to hurt them that has nothing to do with the child.
-
Yep - mutilating little boys so as to conform to religious superstitions is barbaric: time it was stopped.
As you dismiss someone else's life as barbaric and superstitious, why should anyone think you have their best interests at heart?
Because you don't have any empathy.
-
The child is too young to decide if it's important, so he is welcomed into his community anyway.
If people who believe it welcomes him into their community decide they should stop, then good for them.
But I won't be drawn into something that can be used to hurt them that has nothing to do with the child.
It has everything to do with the child: it is the child that is being mutilated.
-
It has everything to do with the child: it is the child that is being mutilated.
And you are not helping them one bit, by being so judgmental about their community.
-
And you are not helping them one bit, by being so judgmental about their community.
On the contrary: the more that people become aware of and speak out against this noxious barbarism, the quicker we're likely to reach a critical mass of public opinion such that the law will be obliged to do something about it.
-
And you are not helping them one bit, by being so judgmental about their community.
There is much to be judgmental about, such as their mutilation of baby boys.
We need our legal system to do something about this abuse.
-
So the child themselves can't make that decision for themselves?
Not as a baby, no.
-
Not as a baby, no.
So you wait until they're not-babies.
Also known as adults.
-
It's odd. Rose has argued - quite rightly - for children to have the freedom to choose their own friends rather than their parents choose. Yet she doesn't support their freedom to have their penises left unmutilated.
I do, when it doesn't have parental consent. ( babies are too young to make their own choices)
http://www.circumstitions.com/coerce.html#contrary
I don't agree with those.
-
So you wait until they're not-babies.
Also known as adults.
It might happen, but those parents have to choose for themselves. I don't agree with bringing laws to force the issue, on male circumcision.
I posted a link further up, a Jewish Doctor.
There is room for discussion, but not if people are going to be " judgmental " and insulting about people's religion.
-
"The bigotry of the
anti-circumcision zealots
ESSAY: Today’s campaigning against circumcision is so dogmatic and intolerant it makes the old religions look enlightened in comparison."
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/12595#.WVvjUrHTWhA
-
"The bigotry of the
anti-circumcision zealots
ESSAY: Today’s campaigning against circumcision is so dogmatic and intolerant it makes the old religions look enlightened in comparison."
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/12595#.WVvjUrHTWhA
So how does this work as a statement against Harrowby Hall who objects to have been circumcised as an infant? surely you are being dogmatic to say it was fair enough though he had no choice? Why are you being so intolerant of his objection? Why do you want to dictatorially tell him his objection is worthless?
-
So how does this work as a statement against Harrowby Hall who objects to have been circumcised as an infant? surely you are being dogmatic to say it was fair enough though he had no choice? Why are you being so intolerant of his objection? Why do you want to dictatorially tell him his objection is worthless?
No, he's entitled to his opinion.
His opinion isn't worthless.
I don't think the article was aimed at Harrowby Hall.
-
No, he's entitled to his opinion.
His opinion isn't worthless.
I don't think the article was aimed at Harrowby Hall.
How does that work? The article states that campaigning against circumcision is intolerant. Are you saying that because it wasn't 'aimed' at HH then in his case you think the article is wrong? In which case, given you think it is wrong, why cite it?
-
How does that work? The article states that campaigning against circumcision is intolerant. Are you saying that because it wasn't 'aimed' at HH then in his case you think the article is wrong? In which case, given you think it is wrong, why cite it?
I don't think it is wrong, I think it is aimed at a certain group of people, that doesn't include HH.
-
I don't think it is wrong, I think it is aimed at a certain group of people, that doesn't include HH.
In what way isn't it wrong? It argues that people who campaign against circumcision are intolerant but somehow that doesn't apply to HH for you. What is the bit in the article that says it isn't intolerant for HH?
-
In what way isn't it wrong? It argues that people who campaign against circumcision are intolerant but somehow that doesn't apply to HH for you. What is the bit in the article that says it isn't intolerant for HH?
Read it again if you didn't understand it.
-
Read it again if you didn't understand it.
It appears you don't
-
It appears you don't
According to you.
-
According to you.
So you aren't going to answer the questions about HH in relation tonwhay you posted? Here they are again. In what way isn't it wrong? It argues that people who campaign against circumcision are intolerant but somehow that doesn't apply to HH for you. What is the bit in the article that says it isn't intolerant for HH?
Any answers?
-
So you aren't going to answer the questions about HH in relation tonwhay you posted? Here they are again. In what way isn't it wrong? It argues that people who campaign against circumcision are intolerant but somehow that doesn't apply to HH for you. What is the bit in the article that says it isn't intolerant for HH?
Any answers?
It isn't wrong because it's one way that events mentioned in it can be interpreted, and outlines some important points of the opposing viewpoint.
It isn't talking about routine circumcision and how men object to what has been done to them. It isn't saying that HH should have been circumcised.
I don't think it's making a point about HH at all.
It's making a point about the sheer spite aimed at that aspect of Jewish practice, it's making a point about the attempted dilution of Judaism.
I don't think any of the writers would be upset if non Jews objected to routine circumcisions and didn't have one.
I think the writers would empathise with how HH felt, as long as they felt their POV was understood as well.
It isn't aimed at HH.
Not unless he forces his opinion on others.
-
It isn't wrong because it's one way that events mentioned in it can be interpreted, and outlines some important points of the opposing viewpoint.
It isn't talking about routine circumcision and how men object to what has been done to them. It isn't saying that HH should have been circumcised.
I don't think it's making a point about HH at all.
It's making a point about the sheer spite aimed at that aspect of Jewish practice, it's making a point about the attempted dilution of Judaism.
I don't think any of the writers would be upset if non Jews objected to routine circumcisions and didn't have one.
I think the writers would empathise with how HH felt, as long as they felt their POV was understood as well.
It isn't aimed at HH.
Not unless he forces his opinion on others.
It's talking about people who are against circumcision. It makes no separation about oeooke who think UT's wrong for any reasons. So it is talking about HH and is precisely being judgemental about him .
-
It's talking about people who are against circumcision. It makes no separation about oeooke who think UT's wrong for any reasons. So it is talking about HH and is precisely being judgemental about him .
In your opinion.
I don't think so!
-
In your opinion.
I don't think so!
Why don't you think so? You posted a piece that says that people who campaign against infant circumcision are intolerant. HH campaigns against it. Ergo the piece thinks HH is intolerant.
-
Why don't you think so? You posted a piece that says that people who campaign against infant circumcision are intolerant. HH campaigns against it. Ergo the piece thinks HH is intolerant.
I told you why, I'm not going around in circles with you.
-
I told you why, I'm not going around in circles with you.
You wrote stuff that isn't in the article and is irrelevant to the absolutism that is in the article.
-
... but those parents have to choose for themselves.
But they demonstrably aren't closing for themselves - they are choosing for another person.
If a father at the age of 30 decides to choose for themselves and have their own foreskin removed then that is OK with me (although I'd like appropriate regulation to ensure that there is proper consent and that the operation is performed safely). But that isn't what is happening here - the parents are making an irreversible decision to mutilate another person's penis without the consent of the affected person. That isn't right.
-
But they demonstrably aren't closing for themselves - they are choosing for another person.
If a father at the age of 30 decides to choose for themselves and have their own foreskin removed then that is OK with me (although I'd like appropriate regulation to ensure that there is proper consent and that the operation is performed safely). But that isn't what is happening here - the parents are making an irreversible decision to mutilate another person's penis without the consent of the affected person. That isn't right.
In your opinion.
Parents are allowed to make this choice on behalf of their son, because they think it is in his best interest. The medical authorities back them. That's why it's legal.
Parents have a right to give consent on behalf of a child to young to make the decision themselves.
Unless the "medical authorities" change their mind on male circumcision and rule it's not in the child's best interest, it will stay legal.
-
It's not 'medical authorities' who need to change their minds - not all of them support enforced circumcision - but legislators. They're the ones who decide what's legal or not.
-
It's not 'medical authorities' who need to change their minds - not all of them support enforced circumcision - but legislators. They're the ones who decide what's legal or not.
But they are driven by reports and medical research supplied by professional people and medical authorities. Most of whom don't object.
They don't pull that decision out of thin air.
-
It's not 'medical authorities' who need to change their minds - not all of them support enforced circumcision - but legislators. They're the ones who decide what's legal or not.
Also it's not "enforced" circumcision. It's male circumcision with the consent of parents.
Emotive language again.
Like the term " male genital multilation " the correct term is " male circumcision "
Perhaps instead of calling you a vegetarian we ought to re-label you. " plant murderer"
-
Also it's not "enforced" circumcision. It's male circumcision with the consent of parents.
Emotive language again.
Like the term " male genital multilation " the correct term is " male circumcision "
Perhaps instead of calling you a vegetarian we ought to re-label you. " plant murderer"
It is mutilation enforced on the child, the parent have no right to agree to it unless it is a medical necessity.
-
Rose
Can you please state your position on FGM.
Is it the same as your position on male circumcision?
And if different why?
-
Rose
Can you please state your position on FGM.
Is it the same as your position on male circumcision?
And if different why?
You beat me to it.
-
Also it's not "enforced" circumcision. It's male circumcision with the consent of parents.
The parents giving (vicarious, i.e. illegitimate) consent aren't being circumcised.
Somebody else is.
Therefore it's enforced on another party who has not given his consent.
Why are you struggling with this most elementary of points?
Perhaps instead of calling you a vegetarian we ought to re-label you. " plant murderer"
Carry on. It's far less absurd than much of what you come out with on this thread.
-
Parents are entitled to give permission for medical procedures for young children, when surgery is required, but not to something unnecessary, which can cause pain, and occasionally death if it is bodged.
-
I think in the UK, parental rights can be limited, if children's rights are harmed, as with tattoos and piercings. It's interesting that in the US there is some outrage over the Charlie Gard case, as the view (by some) is that parents should be able to take their child anywhere they like. But in the UK, this is not the case.
MGM is in an odd position, as by analogy with piercing, it should be banned.
-
It is mutilation enforced on the child, the parent have no right to agree to it unless it is a medical necessity.
No that's your opinion, the law gives them a right to agree or consent to circumcision.
-
No that's your opinion, the law gives them a right to agree to a circumcision.
Which means the law must be changed.
-
No that's your opinion, the law gives them a right to agree or consent to circumcision.
And it is WRONG, imo!
-
Rose
Can you please state your position on FGM.
Is it the same as your position on male circumcision?
And if different why?
It's different because it's not the same thing.
I've already answered this to, further up so am not going round and round on the subject again.
-
Which means the law must be changed.
Others disagree with you.
The medical profession supports the parents giving consent ATM.
-
And it is WRONG, imo!
Still your opinion though!
-
Others disagree with you.
Yes, the morally bankrupt.
The medical profession supports the parents giving consent ATM.
The medical profession follows the law, not makes it.
-
The law in the UK is inconsistent, as far as I can see. Tattoos, piercings, FGM, and no doubt other stuff - parental rights have to give way to children's rights. (Also, with the Charlie Gard case, something parallel).
But with MGM, presumably, the authorities are nervous about the backlash from Jewish and Muslim organizations, so leave the law as a mess.
-
The law in the UK is inconsistent, as far as I can see. Tattoos, piercings, FGM, and no doubt other stuff - parental rights have to give way to children's rights. (Also, with the Charlie Gard case, something parallel).
But with MGM, presumably, the authorities are nervous about the backlash from Jewish and Muslim organizations, so leave the law as a mess.
Which is shameful cowardice, really.
-
Which is shameful cowardice, really.
Agreed, if something is wrong, it should be dealt with, whomever it offends.
-
It's the inconsistency that is striking. You can't tattoo a baby boy, or pierce his cheek with a stud, but you can cut his penis. Very odd, but there are historical reasons, I suppose.
-
It's the inconsistency that is striking. You can't tattoo a baby boy, or pierce his cheek with a stud, but you can cut his penis. Very odd, but there are historical reasons, I suppose.
Historical reasons don't make it right.
-
It's interesting that a ton of kids my age were circumcised (in the 40s and 50s; ouch, I'm old), who were not Jewish or Muslim, and then it started to die out, first, because the so-called health benefits were shown to be non-existent, and second, because with the advent of the NHS, doctors were less likely to get a fee for it. And of course, the NHS were not keen to do it, as it is pointless, and indeed sometimes harmful.
Well, some of these guys from the 40s and 50s are complaining about it, of course.
-
Parents are allowed to make this choice on behalf of their son, because they think it is in his best interest.
Once again you are showing scant understanding of the law and of the underlying medical ethics.
A person with parental responsibility can consent on behalf of a child in the child's best interests. Note the part in italics it has to be in their best interests, not that the parent thinks it is in the child's best interests.
Any consent deemed not to be in the child's best interests is, legally speaking, not consent.
So while it is common for the parent's view to be simply accepted, recourse to the law occurs where there is a disagreement over what is in the child's best interests - that disagreement may be between parents and medical staff, or between the two parents. The course then decides what is in the child's best interests and authorises that treatment or lack of treatment accordingly.
If the court disagrees with the parental view on what is in the child's best interests they are not over-ruling the parental consent, as by definition there is no consent, as the parents are only allowed to consent in the child's best interests, not in what they think is in the child's best interests.
-
Once again you are showing scant understanding of the law and of the underlying medical ethics.
A person with parental responsibility can consent on behalf of a child in the child's best interests. Note the part in italics it has to be in their best interests, not that the parent thinks it is in the child's best interests.
Any consent deemed not to be in the child's best interests is, legally speaking, not consent.
So while it is common for the parent's view to be simply accepted, recourse to the law occurs where there is a disagreement over what is in the child's best interests - that disagreement may be between parents and medical staff, or between the two parents. The course then decides what is in the child's best interests and authorises that treatment or lack of treatment accordingly.
If the court disagrees with the parental view on what is in the child's best interests they are not over-ruling the parental consent, as by definition there is no consent, as the parents are only allowed to consent in the child's best interests, not in what they think is in the child's best interests.
Good we don't need a change in the present law then!
At the moment, no one needs to involve the courts, unless the parents are disputing
-
Once again you are showing scant understanding of the law and of the underlying medical ethics.
A person with parental responsibility can consent on behalf of a child in the child's best interests. Note the part in italics it has to be in their best interests, not that the parent thinks it is in the child's best interests.
Any consent deemed not to be in the child's best interests is, legally speaking, not consent.
So while it is common for the parent's view to be simply accepted, recourse to the law occurs where there is a disagreement over what is in the child's best interests - that disagreement may be between parents and medical staff, or between the two parents. The course then decides what is in the child's best interests and authorises that treatment or lack of treatment accordingly.
If the court disagrees with the parental view on what is in the child's best interests they are not over-ruling the parental consent, as by definition there is no consent, as the parents are only allowed to consent in the child's best interests, not in what they think is in the child's best interests.
So at the moment then, when parents ask the medical profession to circumcise their child, they are considered as acting in the best interests of the child.
Basically you are wiggling around the issue, at the moment parents can sign a consent form for a circumcision and an agreeable doctor will perform it, no need for the courts.
For some reason you have a problem admitting this.
-
So at the moment then, when parents ask the medical profession to circumcise their child, they are considered as acting in the best interests of the child.
Basically you are wiggling around the issue, at the moment parents can sign a consent form for a circumcision and an agreeable doctor will perform it, no need for the courts.
For some reason you have a problem admitting this.
Unless there is a medical problem they are not acting in the best interests of the child.
-
Unless there is a medical problem they are not acting in the best interests of the child.
It's not your call, Floo.
As important as you think you are!
-
So at the moment then, when parents ask the medical profession to circumcise their child, they are considered as acting in the best interests of the child.
Basically you are wiggling around the issue, at the moment parents can sign a consent form for a circumcision and an agreeable doctor will perform it, no need for the courts.
For some reason you have a problem admitting this.
No you are a long way from reality.
If a parent asks a doctor to circumcise their child (except where it is therapeutic) then the doctor does not simply accept the parent's request as 'being in the child's best interests' - no they are obliged themselves to come to a view and I suspect in many circumstance the doctor will take the view that it is not in the child's best interests and will refuse. And the parents simply saying they want it and they'll consent is also not good enough - consent is only valid if sufficiently informed (which must include clear indication of risks) and also completely voluntary, so there should be no external pressures, for example from a community that 'expects' boys to be circumcised.
So I suspect many parents trawl around to find a willing doctor, or more likely communities with high circumcision rates already know the 'tame' doctors who will be willing to circumcise and likely will turn a blind eye to the actual requirements for valid consent.
Actually it isn't even completely clear that non therapeutic infant circumcision is lawful in the UK.
-
And I wouldn't be surprised if there's a test case before long.
-
And I wouldn't be surprised if there's a test case before long.
Perhaps although I wouldn't hold your breath.
Don't forget that FGM is clearly unlawful yet the CPS seems extremely reluctant to prosecute.
That said it could be that the case in the OP provides the opportunity, although I suspect that the courts may 'fudge' the issue - with the brush off of requiring consent of both parents - which is (to my knowledge) pretty well unique in medical ethics and law and actually makes no sense.
-
No you are a long way from reality.
If a parent asks a doctor to circumcise their child (except where it is therapeutic) then the doctor does not simply accept the parent's request as 'being in the child's best interests' - no they are obliged themselves to come to a view and I suspect in many circumstance the doctor will take the view that it is not in the child's best interests and will refuse. And the parents simply saying they want it and they'll consent is also not good enough - consent is only valid if sufficiently informed (which must include clear indication of risks) and also completely voluntary, so there should be no external pressures, for example from a community that 'expects' boys to be circumcised.
So I suspect many parents trawl around to find a willing doctor, or more likely communities with high circumcision rates already know the 'tame' doctors who will be willing to circumcise and likely will turn a blind eye to the actual requirements for valid consent.
Actually it isn't even completely clear that non therapeutic infant circumcision is lawful in the UK.
Yes it is
https://www.circinfo.org/documents/BMA-Circ.pdf
Why you insist on misrepresenting the situation, I've no idea!
From the BMA link
"4.1 The law
Male circumcision is not grounded in statute, however judicial review assumes that, provided both parents consent, non-therapeutic male circumcision is lawful:
"
-
Perhaps although I wouldn't hold your breath.
Don't forget that FGM is clearly unlawful yet the CPS seems extremely reluctant to prosecute.
That said it could be that the case in the OP provides the opportunity, although I suspect that the courts may 'fudge' the issue - with the brush off of requiring consent of both parents - which is (to my knowledge) pretty well unique in medical ethics and law and actually makes no sense.
What about adults suing retrospectively?
-
I was wondering how it can be lawful, since presumably, it is technically assault. I know that assault can be legal, if it's consented to, and is therapeutic, as in surgery, or for cosmetic purposes, e.g., tattooing.
But these involve either adults giving consent, or children having consent given by parents, as in the case of surgery.
But clearly you can't consent to an assault such as tattooing, in a child. How does it become legal for MGM? Custom and practice, I guess.
-
I was wondering how it can be lawful, since presumably, it is technically assault. I know that assault can be legal, if it's consented to, and is therapeutic, as in surgery, or for cosmetic purposes, e.g., tattooing.
But these involve either adults giving consent, or children having consent given by parents, as in the case of surgery.
But clearly you can't consent to an assault such as tattooing, in a child. How does it become legal for MGM? Custom and practice, I guess.
If you look at my BMA link you will find out.
-
If you look at my BMA link you will find out.
Dated 2006 - perhaps now would be a good time for the UK legislatures to grow a pair and legislate to stop babies being mutilated due to 'ritual' (as in noted in your link) circumcision. Time to stop kow-towing to religious superstitions that involve barbarism.
In my view 'ritual' circumcision is utterly indefensible in an allegedly civilised society.
-
It's not your call, Floo.
As important as you think you are!
It's not your call Rose.
As important as you think you are!
-
If you look at my BMA link you will find out.
Which makes it clear that the issue of whether non therapeutic circumcision is lawful is not completely settled.
-
It's not your call Rose.
As important as you think you are!
No at the moment, it's the parents call.
Not yours , not mine, not Floo's.
-
No at the moment, it's the parents call.
Not yours , not mine, not Floo's.
I guess that will be the nub of future legal challenges. I mean, parents cannot give consent to certain types of wounding such as tattoos or piercing, on their children, which are non-surgical. So MGM should be likewise. No doubt the authorities fear the wrath of religious groups. Well, freedom is often hard won, and child abuse has been very resistant to exposure. It will come.
http://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/31/8/469.full.pdf
-
No doubt the authorities fear the wrath of religious groups. Well, freedom is often hard won, and child abuse has been very resistant to exposure. It will come.
To me, the perfect end to the thread.
Unless Rose fetches up demanding a parent's right to chop off the end of it.
-
Yes it is
https://www.circinfo.org/documents/BMA-Circ.pdf
Why you insist on misrepresenting the situation, I've no idea!
From the BMA link
"4.1 The law
Male circumcision is not grounded in statute, however judicial review assumes that, provided both parents consent, non-therapeutic male circumcision is lawful:
"
Note assumes that.
Where the law is clear there is no need to add assumes that.
But adding more of the same document makes the situation much less clear cut with the assumption that:
'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'
Problem for you is that the other example used are largely not lawful for infants. So tattooing isn't lawful under the age of 18 regardless of parental consent, while ear piercing is genital piercing (much more close to circumcision) isn't lawful under the age of 18 regardless of parental consent and boxing isn't permitted under the age of 10.
So while all are lawful in the broadest terms all carry restrictions relating to age. The the judicial review can be interpreted as ritual circumcision is lawful but (like some of the other examples) only for adults with direct consent.
-
So at the moment then, when parents ask the medical profession to circumcise their child, they are considered as acting in the best interests of the child.
As I've said before you are wrong. But don't just take my word for it, this from the BMA guidance:
'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.'
Further:
'that parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child.'
So a request for circumcision by parent most definitely is not considered as being necessarily in the best interests of the child. The doctor has to assess best interests.
Actually the BMA provides 9 criteria to be used in determining best interests - the views of the parent is only one of those, which can easily b outweighed by the other 8.
-
It's not a problem for me, but it will be a problem for the 270,000 + who have their sons circumcised.
( not even counting Muslims and others)
The country is going to needs lots of resources to discover which boy children have been circumcised, ( unacceptably violating all children's privacy) to investigate each one, to prosecute and imprison parents or take the children away.
Lots of Jewish and Muslims don't go to a state school, they have their own schools, and I can't see them allowing social workings in to meddle with their children.
It's unworkable.
It's one thing to make something against the law, quite another to police it.
At least while it's legal it can be done in hygienic conditions, by professionals. Babies are not being circumcised furtively.
You are recommending changing the law, which isn't in the interests of those children affected.
-
It's not a problem for me, but it will be a problem for the 270,000 + who have their sons circumcised.
( not even counting Muslims and others)
The country is going to needs lots of resources to discover which boy children have been circumcised, ( unacceptably violating all children's privacy) to investigate each one, to prosecute and imprison parents or take the children away.
Lots of Jewish and Muslims don't go to a state school, they have their own schools, and I can't see them allowing social workings in to meddle with their children.
It's unworkable.
It's one thing to make something against the law, quite another to police it.
At least while it's legal it can be done in hygienic conditions, by professionals. Babies are not being circumcised furtively.
You are recommending changing the law, which isn't in the interests of those children affected.
Too bad if it is a problem for the parents, it should be the boy's decision if it isn't for genuine medical reasons.
-
It's not a problem for me, but it will be a problem for the 270,000 + who have their sons circumcised.
What planet are you on - those numbers are fanciful.
The total number of circumcisions in the UK is estimated to be around 12,000 per year (about 3.5% of boys) so massively different to your 270,000 which is not far off the total birth rate of boys.
( not even counting Muslims and others)
What do you mean by that (do you mean not Jewish - ooh that's telling of your prejudices) - given that the vast majority of the 12,000 circumcisions a year are performed on boys of Muslim parents, again you are talking junk. Given that there are under 4000 births to Jewish parents in the UK per year (and less than 2000 circumcisions) again you ill-informed non-sense statistics are rather telling of you lack of knowledge.
-
Lots of Jewish and Muslims don't go to a state school ...
Depends what you mean by 'lots' but I think the reality is actually very few.
Once again let's look at the actual data rather than you plucked out of thin air nonsense.
About 97% of children of muslim parents attend state schools. Somewhat smaller proportion of children of jewish parents, but still around 70% attend state schools. Given that about 2000 of the current circumcisions a year are for boys of jewish parents, and about 10,000 for children of muslim parents, that equates to over 92% of circumcised boys attending state school. In effect over 92% of the children of muslim and jewish parents are in state school.
Doesn't really back up your 'Lots of Jewish and Muslims don't go to a state school' hand waving.
-
I think Rose is saying that she thinks a change in the law will mean social services going into schools ('meddling') to inspect the penises of Jewish boys and 'others' and throw their parents into jail if they've been circumcised.
-
I think Rose is saying that she thinks a change in the law will mean social services going into schools ('meddling') to inspect the penises of Jewish boys and 'others' and throw their parents into jail if they've been circumcised.
Well I presume were MGM to be made unlawful in the same manner as FGM then it would include a requirement to report - so there wouldn't be a need for social services to actively go into schools as the schools themselves would, under the law, be required to report as they currently are for FGM or any concerns about abuse.
Secondly I suspect it would be doctors performing the circumcision that would be charged rather than parents.
She is right that there are concerns about the law working in practice, using FGM as an example - we are so timid and tip-toe around religious sensibilities that there is a reluctance to charge, as seen with (I think) no prosecutions for FGM yet.
-
As I've said before you are wrong. But don't just take my word for it, this from the BMA guidance:
'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.'
Further:
'that parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child.'
So a request for circumcision by parent most definitely is not considered as being necessarily in the best interests of the child. The doctor has to assess best interests.
Actually the BMA provides 9 criteria to be used in determining best interests - the views of the parent is only one of those, which can easily b outweighed by the other 8.
I see the discussion has not moved on much.
Regarding best interest - as I pointed out a few pages back, there is an increase in HIV rates in the UK among certain parts of the black community, members of those communities travel back and forth between the UK and their ancestral home, and there are inadequate resources and funding in the UK to address the HIV increase in those communities living in the UK. Here is the link again.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/10/aids.adrianlevy
Meanwhile in parts of Africa e.g. Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya - there is a campaign to promote male circumcision, and given the lower risks if circumcision is carried out on an infant rather than an adult, it seems unlikely that infant circumcision will be discouraged any time soon, whether in the UK or in Africa, unless there is scientific consensus that the benefit does not justify the risks associated with infant male circumcision. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/27/rwanda-non-surgical-circumcision-hiv
The BMA guidance for best interests of the child seems to include that it may be in the social, psychological and emotional best interest of the child to be brought up as part of their parents' culture - possibly because that creates family and community bonds that provide emotional security for the child - very hard to quantify and therefore dispute:
Guidance from the General Medical Council (GMC) recognises that there are
“procedures which may be undertaken by doctors mainly for religious, cultural, social
or emotional reasons”; it states that “both the GMC and the law permit doctors to
undertake procedures that do not offer immediate or obvious therapeutic benefits for
children or young people, so long as they are in their best interests”.
The guidance also states that, “To assess their best interests you should consider
the religious and cultural beliefs and values of the child or young person and their
parents, as well as any social, psychological and emotional benefits. This may be
relevant in circumcision of male children for religious or cultural reasons, or surgical
correction of physical characteristics that do not endanger the child's life or health”.
In addition, GMC guidance on personal beliefs and medical practice (2013) states
that, with regard to circumcision of male children for religious or cultural reasons,
“Many people within the Jewish and Islamic faiths consider male circumcision to be
essential to the practice of their religion; they would regard any restriction or ban on
male circumcision as an infringement of a fundamental human right”.
It is on similar principles that the British Medical Association (BMA) states that:
“Circumcision of male children has been generally assumed to be lawful, provided
that it is performed competently; it is believed to be in the child’s best interests; and
there is valid consent”.
Doctors and GP practices carrying out circumcision for religious observance must be
registered with CQC to carry out the regulated activity of surgical procedures...
Page 3 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/309163/response/757132/attach/4/Circumcision%20advice%20for%20inspectors.pdf
-
Gabby even if that was true, it is still no excuse for hacking off the foreskin of babies.
-
Gabby even if that was true, it is still no excuse for hacking off the foreskin of babies.
Depends on how various professionals view what is in the best interests of the child. No doubt future research will one day reach a definitive conclusion on the medical benefits. But one of the considerations is whether it is in the best interests of children to be brought up in the culture of their parents.
-
Depends on how various professionals view what is in the best interests of the child. No doubt future research will one day reach a definitive conclusion on the medical benefits. But one of the considerations is whether it is in the best interests of children to be brought up in the culture of their parents.
It isn't in the best interests of the child unless he has a medical problem.
-
Regarding best interest - as I pointed out a few pages back, there is an increase in HIV rates in the UK among certain parts of the black community, members of those communities travel back and forth between the UK and their ancestral home, and there are inadequate resources and funding in the UK to address the HIV increase in those communities living in the UK. Here is the link again.
Sorry but you are wrong, or if I am being charitable, misunderstanding the details.
The only credible evidence for reduction in HIV transmission due to circumcision is for infection of men during heterosexual sex with a woman. There is no evidence that circumcision reduces transmission for homosexual sex nor for infection of women during heterosexual sex.
So the critical issue isn't overall infection rates, but infection rates of men from heterosexual sex. And those rates have reduced dramatically over the past decade, indeed they have halves since 2005.
And in fact overall infection rates have been gentle reducing over time, so for example in 2016 6,095 people were diagnosed with HIV in the UK compared to 7,892 in 2005. And yet levels of circumcision have also reduced in the sexually-active population during this time.
But, of course the best way to prevent infection is to use a condom.
-
Sorry but you are wrong, or if I am being charitable, misunderstanding the details.
The only credible evidence for reduction in HIV transmission due to circumcision is for infection of men during heterosexual sex with a woman. There is no evidence that circumcision reduces transmission for homosexual sex nor for infection of women during heterosexual sex.
So the critical issue isn't overall infection rates, but infection rates of men from heterosexual sex. And those rates have reduced dramatically over the past decade, indeed they have halves since 2005.
And in fact overall infection rates have been gentle reducing over time, so for example in 2016 6,095 people were diagnosed with HIV in the UK compared to 7,892 in 2005. And yet levels of circumcision have also reduced in the sexually-active population during this time.
But, of course the best way to prevent infection is to use a condom.
Of course it is.
-
What planet are you on - those numbers are fanciful.
The total number of circumcisions in the UK is estimated to be around 12,000 per year (about 3.5% of boys) so massively different to your 270,000 which is not far off the total birth rate of boys.
What do you mean by that (do you mean not Jewish - ooh that's telling of your prejudices) - given that the vast majority of the 12,000 circumcisions a year are performed on boys of Muslim parents, again you are talking junk. Given that there are under 4000 births to Jewish parents in the UK per year (and less than 2000 circumcisions) again you ill-informed non-sense statistics are rather telling of you lack of knowledge.
That post of yours is a mess.
-
Care to explain (rather than merely assert) what's wrong with it?
-
It made perfect sense to me Rose. Unless you are disagreeimg with the avtual figures. In which case I'm sure you will be able to provide alternative data to rebut the Profs post.
-
What planet are you on - those numbers are fanciful.
The total number of circumcisions in the UK is estimated to be around 12,000 per year (about 3.5% of boys) so massively different to your 270,000 which is not far off the total birth rate of boys.
What do you mean by that (do you mean not Jewish - ooh that's telling of your prejudices) - given that the vast majority of the 12,000 circumcisions a year are performed on boys of Muslim parents, again you are talking junk. Given that there are under 4000 births to Jewish parents in the UK per year (and less than 2000 circumcisions) again you ill-informed non-sense statistics are rather telling of you lack of knowledge.
Not on the same planet as you 🙄 obviously.
270,000 wasn't supposed to be circumcisions a year, try reading it properly.
Muslims don't have quite the same commandment to circumcise boys early although there are Hadiths that seem to say seven days after birth, mainly because that's what Mohammed was thought to have done.
-
Depends what you mean by 'lots' but I think the reality is actually very few.
Once again let's look at the actual data rather than you plucked out of thin air nonsense.
About 97% of children of muslim parents attend state schools. Somewhat smaller proportion of children of jewish parents, but still around 70% attend state schools. Given that about 2000 of the current circumcisions a year are for boys of jewish parents, and about 10,000 for children of muslim parents, that equates to over 92% of circumcised boys attending state school. In effect over 92% of the children of muslim and jewish parents are in state school.
Doesn't really back up your 'Lots of Jewish and Muslims don't go to a state school' hand waving.
70% of Jewish children attend state schools? Where did you get that from?
According to the NSS two thirds of Jewish children attend Jewish faith schools
You can't both be right.
-
70% of Jewish children attend state schools? Where did you get that from?
According to the NSS two thirds of Jewish children attend Jewish faith schools
You can't both be right.
Yes, they can. A Jewish faith school can still be a state school. I went to an RC state primary.
-
Rose seems to make proclamations without always checking to see she is correct. ::)
-
Rose seems to make proclamations without always checking to see she is correct. ::)
Perhaps, but then she isn't alone in that.
-
70% of Jewish children attend state schools? Where did you get that from?
According to the NSS two thirds of Jewish children attend Jewish faith schools
You can't both be right.
NS has beaten me to it.
I am correct because although the Board of Deputies of British Jews claims that 63% of children of Jewish parents are in Jewish schools (which broadly divides 57:43 between what they describe as 'mainstream' and 'orthodox' schools) they are also clear that over 85% of the children in 'mainstream' schools are in state Jewish schools, and about 13% of those in orthodox schools are in state schools.
So add that all together and only about 30% of children of Jewish parents are in independent Jewish schools, the rest are in state schools (actually to be absolutely correct there will be a tiny fraction in independent non-Jewish schools.
But this is related to your comment:
'Lots of Jewish and Muslims don't go to a state school, they have their own schools, and I can't see them allowing social workings in to meddle with their children.'
If kids are in a state schools, regardless of whether it is non faith or Jewish (or other) faith that school is regulated by Ofsted and accountable to the LEA or DfE. Were the law to change and a state funded school to refuse to comply with the new law that school would be in special measures and taken over by leadership that would comply with the law before you could blink.
-
270,000 wasn't supposed to be circumcisions a year, try reading it properly.
I did and I fail to understand what that number represents;
You original quote:
'It's not a problem for me, but it will be a problem for the 270,000 + who have their sons circumcised.'
Makes no sense - is this an annual value, or some kind of cumulative over some years (in which case why chose a timeframe which is about 25 years worth of circumcisions.
-
That post of yours is a mess.
I disagree - I think I am actually providing some numbers that stand up to challenge.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/10/aids.adrianlevy
But this article is from 2005 and as I have pointed infection rates of the type that might be reduced due to circumcision have halved in the UK, while circumcision rates in the sexually active population have also reduced.
Also to note even if we take the most optimistic research on reduction in HIV transmission to heterosexual men, were we to circumcise all baby boys this year, we might end up with approx. 5 fewer diagnoses of HIV per year in 20 years time. But that's assuming infection rates remain as they are in 2015. If the trend from 2005 to 2016 continues that would reduce to 1 less infection.
And before you claim that even one less infection is worth it, the date on serious complications suggests that circumcision of all boys would result in 25-30 deaths due to complications.
-
Sorry but you are wrong, or if I am being charitable, misunderstanding the details.
The only credible evidence for reduction in HIV transmission due to circumcision is for infection of men during heterosexual sex with a woman. There is no evidence that circumcision reduces transmission for homosexual sex nor for infection of women during heterosexual sex.
So the critical issue isn't overall infection rates, but infection rates of men from heterosexual sex. And those rates have reduced dramatically over the past decade, indeed they have halves since 2005.
And in fact overall infection rates have been gentle reducing over time, so for example in 2016 6,095 people were diagnosed with HIV in the UK compared to 7,892 in 2005. And yet levels of circumcision have also reduced in the sexually-active population during this time.
But, of course the best way to prevent infection is to use a condom.
The WHO has never made an argument that circumcision is useful for preventing HIV among Men who have sex with Men (MSM) nor has it argued that it is useful in preventing HIV among drug users, in case you were going to bring that into the argument. And the WHO also highlighted that the best way to prevent an infection was to use a condom.
My contribution was only intending to focus on the WHO policy regarding promoting circumcision among men having heterosexual sex as one measure to control HIV rates in certain parts of Africa and how that influences black communities living in the UK. Given migration patterns and the different cultures in the UK and the WHO policy in relation to circumcision of heterosexual men in parts of Africa, it seemed that people from that part of the world living in the UK may have an interest in the UK not banning infant circumcision, if infant circumcision has lower risks compared to adult circumcision.
And yes I agree that MSM remain the group most affected by HIV with 47 per 1,000 living with the infection according to the HIV in the United Kingdom: 2013 Report.
The same report reported that heterosexual Black-African men and women were the second largest group affected by HIV with 38 per 1,000 living with the infection (26 per 1,000 in men and 51 per 1,000 in women). It also said that of the 31,800 (29,700-34,600) black-African men and women living with HIV, 23%remained unaware of their infection in 2012 and that over the past five years, an estimated 1,000 black-African men and women probably acquired HIV in the UK annually.
According to page 16 of HIV and Black African Communities in the UK June 2014: A POLICY REPORT - at the time of writing, a total of 40,251 African men and women have been diagnosed in the UK. The report also said that diagnoses reached a peak in 2003 with 4,063 black Africans being diagnosed and since then the number of new diagnoses has declined year on year. In 2012 the total was 1,522, the lowest total since 1999.
However, the report states there is consensus that the main reason for this decline in HIV diagnoses is a fall off in migration from sub-Saharan Africa, a result mainly of changes in UK immigration policy.
It indicates that over time the proportion of new diagnoses in the UK of HIV acquired in Africa is declining and the proportion of HIV acquired in the UK is increasing amongst black African men and women in the UK, but as an absolute number of new diagnoses it has remained fairly constant over the last few years, at about 1,000.
And your response did not address the other issue I raised about the BMA guidance on what is in the best interests of the child. It may well be that over time the autonomy of the child will take precedence in the minds of parents rather than a shared cultural heritage and parents will decide to wait until the child makes an informed decision as a teen regarding circumcision, even if this carries more risk of complications compared to circumcision as an infant. We'll just have to wait and see. In the meantime the BMA currently seems to think that it is in the best interests of the child in this particular instance, to be brought up in the culture of his parents.
-
But this article is from 2005 and as I have pointed infection rates of the type that might be reduced due to circumcision have halved in the UK, while circumcision rates in the sexually active population have also reduced.
Also to note even if we take the most optimistic research on reduction in HIV transmission to heterosexual men, were we to circumcise all baby boys this year, we might end up with approx. 5 fewer diagnoses of HIV per year in 20 years time. But that's assuming infection rates remain as they are in 2015. If the trend from 2005 to 2016 continues that would reduce to 1 less infection.
And before you claim that even one less infection is worth it, the date on serious complications suggests that circumcision of all boys would result in 25-30 deaths due to complications.
Sorry- you lost me - where are these figures from again? For example, how did you arrive at 5 fewer diagnoses of HIV per year in 20 years time among heterosexual men?
-
Sorry- you lost me - where are these figures from again? For example, how did you arrive at 5 fewer diagnoses of HIV per year in 20 years time among heterosexual men?
By working out the annual rate of infection of heterosexual men, combined with annual numbers of new circumcised boys (based on birth rate and assuming all are circumcised) and assuming a 50% reduction in infection if circumcised rather than uncircumcised.
Worth noting that pretty well all the HIV infections for heterosexual men are a result of unprotected sex.
-
By working out the annual rate of infection of heterosexual men, combined with annual numbers of new circumcised boys (based on birth rate and assuming all are circumcised) and assuming a 50% reduction in infection if circumcised rather than uncircumcised.
Worth noting that pretty well all the HIV infections for heterosexual men are a result of unprotected sex.
Point being HIV infection of men caused by hetersexual sex is incredibly rare - effectively 1 per 65000 of the population.
It is of course also worth recognising that although HIV infection was once a death sentence it isn't anymore. So in 2016 HIV infection was very well managed, so only 300 people were actually diagnosed with AIDS and about a similar number died of AIDS related causes. If your become infected with HIV you are now more likely to die with HIV (i.e. of a completely unrelated to the HIV infection) than die of AIDS, i.e. HIV related.
-
According to page 16 of HIV and Black African Communities in the UK June 2014: A POLICY REPORT - at the time of writing, a total of 40,251 African men and women have been diagnosed in the UK. The report also said that diagnoses reached a peak in 2003 with 4,063 black Africans being diagnosed and since then the number of new diagnoses has declined year on year. In 2012 the total was 1,522, the lowest total since 1999.
However, the report states there is consensus that the main reason for this decline in HIV diagnoses is a fall off in migration from sub-Saharan Africa, a result mainly of changes in UK immigration policy.
But the report clearly indicates that only 5% of those infected were born in the UK, so I am struggling to see how infant circumcision for new born boys in the UK is going to make any difference.
Actually the report (all 72 pages of it) never mentions circumcision once - so clearly they do see this as a way forward. By contrast (and obviously) there is a huge focus on improving education and condom use.
-
In the meantime the BMA currently seems to think that it is in the best interests of the child in this particular instance, to be brought up in the culture of his parents.
Which 'particular instance' is that.
Remember that determining best interest has to be done on a case by case basis and we are simply not aware of the number of cases where parents request circumcision and the doctor considers whether that would be in the best interests of the child (as they are required to do) and concludes that it is not and therefore refuses to perform the operation.
-
Which 'particular instance' is that.
Remember that determining best interest has to be done on a case by case basis and we are simply not aware of the number of cases where parents request circumcision and the doctor considers whether that would be in the best interests of the child (as they are required to do) and concludes that it is not and therefore refuses to perform the operation.
They think that " generally speaking" it's not on a case by case basis.
It is possible to think that the best interests of children generally, is to be brought up within their community.
This is what they say on it.
"There is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself. The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven but there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly. The Association has no policy on these issues. Indeed, it would be difficult to formulate a policy in the absence of unambiguously clear and consistent medical data on the implications of the intervention. As a general rule, however, the BMA believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices. What those limits currently are is discussed below, together with the legal and ethical considerations for doctors asked to perform non-therapeutic circumcision."
As a general rule, however, the BMA believes that parents should be ENTITLED to make choices about how to promote their children's interests..........
Which is what I've been saying all along.
-
BMA
"It is important that doctors consider the child’s social and cultural circumstances. Where a child is living in a culture in which circumcision is required for all males, the increased acceptance into a family or society that circumcision can confer is considered to be a strong social or cultural benefit. Exclusion may cause harm by, for example, complicating the individual’s search for identity and sense of belonging. Clearly, assessment of such intangible risks and benefits is complex. On a more practical level, some people also argue that it is necessary to consider the effects of a decision not to circumcise. If there is a risk that a child will be circumcised in unhygienic or otherwise unsafe conditions, doctors may consider it better that they carry out the procedure, or refer to another practitioner, rather than allow the child to be put at risk."
Another point I made further up about back street circumcisions.
Further up in red this also indicates what Gabriella was saying about being brought up in the culture of his parents
Plus it talks about harm by excluding a child from their community.
-
BMA
"Many aspects of good practice – including careful assessment of best interests, balancing conflicting rights and consulting with patients and their families – have taken on added importance as a result of the Human Rights Act, which makes them a required part of the decision making process. As yet, the full impact of the Act on medical decision making is not known, and the rights in the Act are used by commentators to both support and reject non- therapeutic circumcision. One reason why it is not clear where the balance of rights lies is that the medical evidence is equivocal. Some argue that circumcision is a relatively neutral procedure, that, competently performed, carries little risk but can confer important psychosocial benefits. Others argue that circumcision has, or can have, profound and long-lasting adverse effects on the person who has been circumcised. 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. Indeed, if damage to health were proven, there may be obligations on the state to proscribe it. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified by the UK, requires ratifying states to “take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health ofchildren”.14 Atpresent,however,themedicalevidenceis inconclusive."
The evidence is " inconclusive "
Hence ATM its legal!
-
Maybe some 'cultures' need to have a re-think and come to the view that mutilating their children is no longer acceptable.
-
Maybe some 'cultures' need to have a re-think and come to the view that mutilating their children is no longer acceptable.
You can't bully them Gordon, only me.
They don't go on message boards where they are like to meet the bullying self righteousness you get on here.
-
Yeah. 'We welcome you, you cute baby boy you, into our community once you have had a bit chopped off your penis.'
Wtf?
-
You can't bully them Gordon, only me.
You owe him an apology for that one.
-
Yeah. 'We welcome you, you cute baby boy you, into our community once you have had a bit chopped off your penis.'
Wtf?
Did you really not know this?
https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/circumcision-is-at-the-heart-of-jewish-identity-1.53320
http://www.mohel-circumcision.co.uk/1206.html
-
Did you really not know this?
https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/circumcision-is-at-the-heart-of-jewish-identity-1.53320
http://www.mohel-circumcision.co.uk/1206.html
::)
I was commenting on how poor an argument it is.
-
You can't bully them Gordon, only me.
They don't go on message boards where they are like to meet the bullying self righteousness you get on here.
They are perhaps too introspective and insightless to break free of the fallacies of authority and tradition, so they might need some help in the form of legal imperatives to compel them to stop the barbarism.
I'm quite happy to bully those who mutilate their children in the hope that in due course they will be forced to stop doing so if they can't find the humanity to stop of their own accord.
-
Baby boys who can't be circumcised for medical reasons - usually haemophilia; there are a few other conditions - are still considered fully and entirely Jewish.
So the 'identity' business is bullshit.
-
They are perhaps too introspective and insightless to break free of the fallacies of authority and tradition, so they might need some help in the form of legal imperatives to compel them to stop the barbarism.
I'm quite happy to bully those who mutilate their children in the hope that in due course they will be forced to stop doing so if they can't find the humanity to stop of their own accord.
I'll say an ironic post-modern 'amen' to that.
-
You owe him an apology for that one.
No, it definately has felt like bullying at times. Not just Gordon
-
They are perhaps too introspective and insightless to break free of the fallacies of authority and tradition, so they might need some help in the form of legal imperatives to compel them to stop the barbarism.
I'm quite happy to bully those who mutilate their children in the hope that in due course they will be forced to stop doing so if they can't find the humanity to stop of their own accord.
That's what concerns me, how people here would treat a Jewish person if they dared to come on here.
I would hate to think people here would turn on them because they were Jewish and wouldn't conform to the mindset on here.
It doesn't hurt me, because my sons are uncircumcised and it's not my community, but I would hate to think you would all start on someone because they were themselves.
Some of you are intolerant of differences.
-
No, it definately has felt like bullying at times. Not just Gordon
It's disagreement. And if people feel hostile then it because you are using poor argument and unfounded accusations of prejudice to defend the indefensible.
-
That's what concerns me, how people here would treat a Jewish person if they dared to come on here.
I would hate to think people here would turn on them because they were Jewish and wouldn't conform to the mindset on here.
It doesn't hurt me, because my sons are uncircumcised and it's not my community, but I would hate to think you would all start on someone because they were themselves.
Some of you are intolerant of differences.
Have people turned on Gabriella?
Your unfounded and disgusting allegations of antisemitism against the posters here are appalling.
-
No, it definately has felt like bullying at times. Not just Gordon
I'm just observing that your apologist stance in support of circumcision implies your support the ritual mutilation of baby boys: if you interpret that as bullying then you need a thicker skin.
-
I don't think she is Rhiannon (your post 8.21pm.) Rose has posted links that give a lot of detail & no-one much appears to have read them properly, she's often picked on & quoted out of context. She has also made it clear she is not in the pro-circumcision camp but can understand the arguments for.
No, it definately has felt like bullying at times. Not just Gordon
You're right in my opinion.
-
It's disagreement. And if people feel hostile then it because you are using poor argument and unfounded accusations of prejudice to defend the indefensible.
The reason many Jews won't discuss it, is because of past abuse.
I have managed to discuss it, and what was told is the biggest stumbling block is the passage in Genesis.
" 9God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10“This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11“And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12“And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13“A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14“But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”"
Because it says that, a lot of Orthodox Jews won't consider " giving it up"
Not without a fight, anyway.
From their viewpoint, they have been commanded to do that and yes they also do it to welcome the baby into the Jewish community.
I would hate for someone to make it illegal, so that babies are circumcised without hygienic conditions.
The BMA report actually says the harm caused by male circumcision isn't conclusive.
-
I don't think she is Rhiannon (your post 8.21pm.) Rose has posted links that give a lot of detail & no-one much appears to have read them properly, she's often picked on & quoted out of context. She has also made it clear she is not in the pro-circumcision camp but can understand the arguments for.
You're right in my opinion.
No they never bothered to read my links Robinson. I do read and have posted both sides.
-
::)
I was commenting on how poor an argument it is.
So you sit in judgment of Judaism then? and you're not really interested in seeing the other POV.
-
So you sit in judgment of Judaism then and your are not really interested in seeing the other POV.
I sit in judgement of anyone who thinks slicing bits off babies without consent is a good and a right thing to do whatever fatuous and asinine reasons they cough up for it.
Your well-poisoning accusations of anti-Semitism won't wash here.
-
Moderator
Accusations of bullying are taken very seriously. If a poster thinks they are being bullied, then please report the post(s).
-
So you sit in judgment of Judaism then? and you're not really interested in seeing the other POV.
Now who is judging and distorting?
-
Have people turned on Gabriella?
Your unfounded and disgusting allegations of antisemitism against the posters here are appalling.
Not yet, not on this they haven't. Too busy having a go at me.
Gabriella picks the things she challenges you all on, so she keeps control of the discussion.
I don't doubt if she didn't keep her dignified self control, you would all start on her too.
-
Now who is judging and distorting?
You!
The links you quoted, of mine, in your post saying what a poor argument it was, were Jewish ones explaining its importance to them.
So basically you judged their reasoning without even bothering to try and understand the issue.
Or even discuss it.
I posted them because you indicated you didn't understand that it was an initiation ceremony welcoming the baby to the Jewish community, hence I posted ones that explained.
Did you even bother to look? Before flippantly saying it was a poor argument?
Do you come here to discuss? Or scoff?
-
One can do both.
-
Funny how intolerant the cries of 'you're intolerant' are looking.
-
uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”"
The really perplexing thing about this is that we are made in Gods image. Genesis 1:27
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
So was God formed fully circumcised, and then made a mistake in the copying bit of the process. So then had to get his/her people to correct his/her mistake. But then God doesn't make mistakes.
Of course, God could have been circumcised by somebody/thing else but that begs another altogether more regressive question.
It's all very confusing.
-
It's disagreement. And if people feel hostile then it because you are using poor argument and unfounded accusations of prejudice to defend the indefensible.
I'm not using poor argument, I have supported everything I have said with links to the world Health organisation and the BMA.
I've also at times posted links to BOTH sides.
Only Robinson seems to have bothered to read them.
No one seems very interested in exploring the issues at all, all people can do is keep going in the same old circular arguments, misrepresenting my posts and trying to bully me into thinking like them.
Well thats not happening.
You say my arguments are bad ones, but at least I put forward links for both sides and try and discuss it.
I absolutely hate bullies who can't consider a different POV and can't look past their own narrow minded views.
I did point out to you, I wasn't pro circumcision, that I was for allowing different POV when it comes to such things.
If the BMA say harm is not conclusive if circumcision is done in good hygienic conditions, then that is what they say. They are far more medically qualified than people here.
If that is what they say, I am happy to leave such decisions to other parents, to make up their own minds.
I chose not to. They choose differently. Live and let live.
I'm sorry most of you don't know how to be tolerant of others different from yourselves, or that you can't understand earning a bit of pocket money isn't slavery, or any of the other arguments you have on here where there is no middle ground. Or children shouldn't be allowed to go to a party unless the parents are vetted.
Most of you are too much alike, there is no middle ground, no understanding of the difference between earning a bit of free cash and indentured slavery. The only time you disagree with each other is when one of you take a step to far and is a bit more staid and pedantic than the rest.
Seriously it isn't my problem, it's yours!
If it makes you insecure that I can discuss the issues and I'm not staid and fixed in my ways of seeing the world, I can always find somewhere else.
I don't fit in here, You know it, and I know it.
The narrow minded attitude gets to me, after a while.
Robinson, you are an interesting person. You read deeply and understand a lot. It's a shame but I'm moving on.
Don't let them make you like them 😉
I have asked NS to terminate my membership.
-
BMA
"It is important that doctors consider the child’s social and cultural circumstances. Where a child is living in a culture in which circumcision is required for all males, the increased acceptance into a family or society that circumcision can confer is considered to be a strong social or cultural benefit. Exclusion may cause harm by, for example, complicating the individual’s search for identity and sense of belonging. Clearly, assessment of such intangible risks and benefits is complex. On a more practical level, some people also argue that it is necessary to consider the effects of a decision not to circumcise. If there is a risk that a child will be circumcised in unhygienic or otherwise unsafe conditions, doctors may consider it better that they carry out the procedure, or refer to another practitioner, rather than allow the child to be put at risk."
I note you failed to provide the next paragraph, which argues in the opposite direction:
'On the other hand, very similar arguments are also used to try and justify very harmful cultural procedures, such as female genital mutilation or ritual scarification. Furthermore, the harm of denying a person the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual’s relationship with his parents and the medical profession if he feels harmed by the procedure.'
-
BMA
"Many aspects of good practice – including careful assessment of best interests, balancing conflicting rights and consulting with patients and their families – have taken on added importance as a result of the Human Rights Act, which makes them a required part of the decision making process. As yet, the full impact of the Act on medical decision making is not known, and the rights in the Act are used by commentators to both support and reject non- therapeutic circumcision. One reason why it is not clear where the balance of rights lies is that the medical evidence is equivocal. Some argue that circumcision is a relatively neutral procedure, that, competently performed, carries little risk but can confer important psychosocial benefits. Others argue that circumcision has, or can have, profound and long-lasting adverse effects on the person who has been circumcised. 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. Indeed, if damage to health were proven, there may be obligations on the state to proscribe it. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified by the UK, requires ratifying states to “take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health ofchildren”.14 Atpresent,however,themedicalevidenceis inconclusive."
The evidence is " inconclusive "
Hence ATM its legal!
Nope - it's legality has not been tested or proved, hence 'assumed to be lawful'.
There is a difference - the lawfulness of infant circumcision remains unclear, and will do so until there is a definitive test case in the courts, or a clear view from Parliament.
-
Only Robinson seems to have bothered to read them.
Not true - I have read them (any plenty of others besides) - I would have thought that was obvious from my posts.
-
If the BMA say harm is not conclusive if circumcision is done in good hygienic conditions, then that is what they say. They are far more medically qualified than people here.
But that isn't true - again from the BMA guidance:
'The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks'
-
By working out the annual rate of infection of heterosexual men, combined with annual numbers of new circumcised boys (based on birth rate and assuming all are circumcised) and assuming a 50% reduction in infection if circumcised rather than uncircumcised.
Worth noting that pretty well all the HIV infections for heterosexual men are a result of unprotected sex.
Ok - but no one is advocating all babies be circumcised - the discussion was about whether parents in the UK should be legally prevented from having babies circumcised if both parents agree, especially if they see circumcision as one measure to reduce the risk of certain STDs and HIV infection along with condom use.
By the way, where are you getting the UK death rates from circumcision? If death rates are higher in the UK than the WHO have indicated in their report and parents are educated about the risks of death it should not be too difficult to persuade them to not circumcise their children if there is more chance of dying from circumcision than HIV, and to let the children decide for themselves when they can give informed consent.
-
Not yet, not on this they haven't. Too busy having a go at me.
Gabriella picks the things she challenges you all on, so she keeps control of the discussion.
I don't doubt if she didn't keep her dignified self control, you would all start on her too.
Just spotted this - I don't have time to be on here much, that's probably why. I haven't had a chance to read all the posts but why haven't I been bullied about my point about consideration being given by the BMA to the emotional and social best interests of the child in being brought up in their parents' culture? Or have I been bullied and I missed it?
-
Don't think so Gabriella, you're one who presents things clearly & well researched.
Sorry to see Rose go, she was so balanced and another one whose posts were clear. It was good to have someone not nit picky, able to see that not every issue is black or white.
I often though she'd have been a fair moderator.
Life goes on as they say.
-
Don't think so Gabriella, you're one who presents things clearly & well researched.
Sorry to see Rose go, she was so balanced and another one whose posts were clear. It was good to have someone not nit picky, able to see that not every issue is black or white.
I often though she'd have been a fair moderator.
Life goes on as they say.
Well I feel a bit left out not being bullied. I could do with a laugh - if only I had more time to come on here to be called an apologist for mutilation of boys by Shaker or Gordon, it would really make my day. Ok tbh it probably wouldn't make my day exactly - Shaker and Gordon are fun but not that fun - but it's always good to come on here and put the other POV across and be called barbaric and lacking humanity by people whose opinions are not really worth very much at all.
So, to be clear, from the perspective of an immigrant, I think community identity and culture are important and I think it is usually - but not always - in the best interests of children who are part of a minority culture to be brought up in that culture unless there is clear evidence of an unreasonable risk of harm. Of course there will be exceptions - children who will thrive better in a different culture to the one they are born into - but there are always exceptions.
For me to consider infant circumcision worth banning, as opposed to dying out naturally in the communities that practice it through persuasive argument, I would need to see medical professionals assess the risk of complications and death from circumcision as being unreasonably high. Medical professionals have done so in relation to FGM so clearly they have the appetite for opposing cultural practices where the level of harm warrants it. I accept the law against FGM is clearly not being enforced, given the lack of prosecutions, but I get the feeling that is changing and there is likely to be more robust prosecutions of parents and doctors who facilitate it in the UK if there is some way of getting the necessary evidence against an individual to get a successful prosecution.
I currently do not find the arguments from people on here who oppose the cultural practice of circumcision persuasive enough to legally ban it, though Prof Davey's stats could be if the rate of deaths and complications from non-therapeutic circumcision outweigh the benefits. In the meantime, while there is no consensus from the medical professionals in the UK that the medical benefits are too minimal to justify the risk of death or complications, or that the risk of harm is unacceptable enough to legally ban circumcision, I will continue to be an apologist for the barbaric, inhuman mutilation of boys by parents who are bringing them up with a particular culturally identity. I understand the argument that it is a pointless ritual - many rituals and cultural practices are pointless - and I therefore suspect that more and more people will abandon this part of their culture if the risk of complications and deaths seems too high. In countries where life is generally a lot less safe than in the UK, the risks from circumcision might seem acceptable, but in the context of the UK and its safety culture the risks will probably appear a lot more jarring to people who move here and absorb some of the cultural influences of their host country.
I don't think that in relation to this particular issue, based on the current levels of harm being expressed by the majority of people who have been circumcisied and who do not have a problem with it, that it is in the best interests of children for their parents to be legally banned from having their children participate in that aspect of their cultural heritage. Of course I feel empathy for the people who do feel harmed by being circumcised when they would rather not be, and I would support them in educating parents about the risk of psychological trauma so that parents make a more informed decision.
Rose - hope you change your mind and stay - I think this forum needs an opposing POV rather than the same old boring voices and your posts are always welcome.
-
Ok - but no one is advocating all babies be circumcised - the discussion was about whether parents in the UK should be legally prevented from having babies circumcised if both parents agree, especially if they see circumcision as one measure to reduce the risk of certain STDs and HIV infection along with condom use.
But you can only do that by quantifying the 'benefits' and also quantifying the 'harm' - My approach was to look at what would happen in terms of benefits and harm were all boys in the UK circumcised. But the effects are of course scalable.
By the way, where are you getting the UK death rates from circumcision? If death rates are higher in the UK than the WHO have indicated in their report and parents are educated about the risks of death it should not be too difficult to persuade them to not circumcise their children if there is more chance of dying from circumcision than HIV, and to let the children decide for themselves when they can give informed consent.
The death rates are based on a study in the USA (a comparable developed country) which I linked to earlier, which suggested one death per approx. 11,000 circumcisions.
Now as far as I am aware there hasn't been a recent UK study on this, but given there are about 11,000 circumcisions in the UK per year it is possible to work out whether the death rate is in the 'ball park' by looking for new reports of circumcision deaths in the UK of about one per year. And that's what you find.
I disagree that it should not be difficult to persuade parent not to circumcise their children as in the vast majority of cases this is religiously motivated and parents are under enormous pressure from their faith communities to do it, regardless of the risks. Indeed I suspect the risks are substantially downplayed within those communities.
-
I have felt hesitant to discuss this issue too much as I have been circumcised myself. This was as an adult and for medical reasons (a not uncommon problem for some men) and whilst my sex life (such as it is!) Is much better than it used to be, and I am going back over 30 years now, I still feel conflicted about it. A small sense of loss. Dont get me wrong life is better since than before - but still when i think about it I feel some small sadness. I dont really understand the feeling and i certainly dont dwell on it. So there you have it. But to perform this procedure on children without any good reason feels wrong to me.
I ,like Gabby, hope that Rose reconsiders. Diversity should be a strength.
-
Nope - it's legality has not been tested or proved, hence 'assumed to be lawful'.
There is a difference - the lawfulness of infant circumcision remains unclear, and will do so until there is a definitive test case in the courts, or a clear view from Parliament.
No doubt when the medical evidence is unequivocal that circumcision carries a risk that outweighs the psycho-social benefits and conclusively proves damage to health, there will be a test case on the lawfulness of infant circumcision. As the BMA guidance says "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."
-
But you can only do that by quantifying the 'benefits' and also quantifying the 'harm' - My approach was to look at what would happen in terms of benefits and harm were all boys in the UK circumcised. But the effects are of course scalable.
The death rates are based on a study in the USA (a comparable developed country) which I linked to earlier, which suggested one death per approx. 11,000 circumcisions.
Now as far as I am aware there hasn't been a recent UK study on this, but given there are about 11,000 circumcisions in the UK per year it is possible to work out whether the death rate is in the 'ball park' by looking for new reports of circumcision deaths in the UK of about one per year. And that's what you find.
I disagree that it should not be difficult to persuade parent not to circumcise their children as in the vast majority of cases this is religiously motivated and parents are under enormous pressure from their faith communities to do it, regardless of the risks. Indeed I suspect the risks are substantially downplayed within those communities.
I think it depends on the community and their level of education in understanding the stats. I have no experience within the Jewish community but my experience of educated Muslims is that they would not put their child at risk if they were aware that the risks were not small. I already know people within my community who waited until their child was older and able to express an opinion about cultural ties,and being part of a tradition, and to consent to the circumcision. If the stats are available and back up the position that the risk is not small then that should be highlighted in GP surgeries and hospitals, and through public campaigns etc with a link to the stats.
-
No doubt when the medical evidence is unequivocal that circumcision carries a risk that outweighs the psycho-social benefits and conclusively proves damage to health, there will be a test case on the lawfulness of infant circumcision. As the BMA guidance says "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."
I'm not sure it is that simple - legislators are terrified of upsetting the religious.
Look at what happened in Germany - a court did exactly that - it weighed the harm and purported benefits and concluded that infant circumcision (i.e. without the consent of the baby) cannot be in the best interests and outlawed it. The government received a huge backlash from religious lobbies and caved in reversing the decision - not on evidential grounds but because of political expediency.
If non therapeutic infant circumcision was not associated with religious traditions and the decision was being made on the evidence base it would be declared unlawful in an instance.
-
I think that community and identity are incredibly important - contrary to Rose's accusations of antisemitism my family have had a lifelong close relationship with Jewish friends - and so I think I understand how rich their traditions are. I'm less familiar with Islam but I'm assuming the same there. I'm aware that within Judaism there are movements to change the practice of infant circumcision, backed up by Jewish teachings, and that some families do take the step of refusing it, but if there are still communities that regard it as essential in order for their child to be welcomed then that is sad. Do they feel that their child is outside that community and is therefore rejected in some way? How many families can stand up to family, cultural and religious pressure?
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2007/feb/03/familyandrelationships.family
When I was a kid most of us were 'christened' as babies, sometimes due to family pressure but often because it was just what people did and there was an excuse for a party. It is supposed to be a welcoming into the church but actually it's pretty meaningless because the child hasn't chosen that faith. Now many Christian parents are opting against infant baptism in favour of naming ceremonies in church, and of course the Baptist church itself doesn't conduct infant baptism at all. Opting to be baptised as an adult is a big message about faith and belief. I know that adult circumcision is a bigger deal than for infants but men still opt for it for a whole range of reasons; opting for it as a matter of faith sends a big message and has such a depth of meaning, surely?
-
I'm not sure it is that simple - legislators are terrified of upsetting the religious.
Look at what happened in Germany - a court did exactly that - it weighed the harm and purported benefits and concluded that infant circumcision (i.e. without the consent of the baby) cannot be in the best interests and outlawed it. The government received a huge backlash from religious lobbies and caved in reversing the decision - not on evidential grounds but because of political expediency.
If non therapeutic infant circumcision was not associated with religious traditions and the decision was being made on the evidence base it would be declared unlawful in an instance.
I see that the court ruled that a mother's or father's right to freedom of religion as well as their right to determining how they raise their child would not be limited if they were forced to wait and allow their child to decide for himself if he wanted to be circumcised. The ruling states a child's right to self-determination should come first. I think it just requires a little momentum and public support for this to be adopted by other courts.
-
I see that the court ruled that a mother's or father's right to freedom of religion as well as their right to determining how they raise their child would not be limited if they were forced to wait and allow their child to decide for himself if he wanted to be circumcised. The ruling states a child's right to self-determination should come first. I think it just requires a little momentum and public support for this to be adopted by other courts.
Although I would not wish it done myself, I have no issue with an adult consenting to circumcision, and therefore a requirement that circumcision can only be performed (unless there are medical indications) with the consent of the person being circumcised.
My issue is with circumcision on an infant or child who has not consented, and indeed is unable to consent.
-
I think that community and identity are incredibly important - contrary to Rose's accusations of antisemitism my family have had a lifelong close relationship with Jewish friends - and so I think I understand how rich their traditions are. I'm less familiar with Islam but I'm assuming the same there. I'm aware that within Judaism there are movements to change the practice of infant circumcision, backed up by Jewish teachings, and that some families do take the step of refusing it, but if there are still communities that regard it as essential in order for their child to be welcomed then that is sad. Do they feel that their child is outside that community and is therefore rejected in some way? How many families can stand up to family, cultural and religious pressure?
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2007/feb/03/familyandrelationships.family
When I was a kid most of us were 'christened' as babies, sometimes due to family pressure but often because it was just what people did and there was an excuse for a party. It is supposed to be a welcoming into the church but actually it's pretty meaningless because the child hasn't chosen that faith. Now many Christian parents are opting against infant baptism in favour of naming ceremonies in church, and of course the Baptist church itself doesn't conduct infant baptism at all. Opting to be baptised as an adult is a big message about faith and belief. I know that adult circumcision is a bigger deal than for infants but men still opt for it for a whole range of reasons; opting for it as a matter of faith sends a big message and has such a depth of meaning, surely?
I didn't read Rose's comment as an accusation of anti-semitism. I thought it was pretty accurate - that some people who hold a different POV for cultural and religious reasons could feel bullied by some posters on here if their views are challenged using emotive terms such as "inhuman", "barbaric" etc. Some people might quite rightly dismiss those kind of comments as playground tactics and find them unpersuasive, but some people might feel more hurt by their traditions being attacked in those terms - and that is what I understood Rose to mean in her posts.
I think she was quite right to point out that different POVs should be expressed on here and she is therefore far more useful to this forum than posters who all think the same or are not prepared to argue constructively.
Yes I agree that adult circumcision sends an important message about faith.
If there is majority public support that the right of a child to self-determination supercedes parental rights to decide what is in the best interests of the child, then there will be the political will to make the legislative changes. I suspect the problem is that society currently prefers parents to decide what is in the best interests of the child in this situation.
-
I think that community and identity are incredibly important - contrary to Rose's accusations of antisemitism my family have had a lifelong close relationship with Jewish friends - and so I think I understand how rich their traditions are. I'm less familiar with Islam but I'm assuming the same there. I'm aware that within Judaism there are movements to change the practice of infant circumcision, backed up by Jewish teachings, and that some families do take the step of refusing it, but if there are still communities that regard it as essential in order for their child to be welcomed then that is sad. Do they feel that their child is outside that community and is therefore rejected in some way? How many families can stand up to family, cultural and religious pressure?
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2007/feb/03/familyandrelationships.family
When I was a kid most of us were 'christened' as babies, sometimes due to family pressure but often because it was just what people did and there was an excuse for a party. It is supposed to be a welcoming into the church but actually it's pretty meaningless because the child hasn't chosen that faith. Now many Christian parents are opting against infant baptism in favour of naming ceremonies in church, and of course the Baptist church itself doesn't conduct infant baptism at all. Opting to be baptised as an adult is a big message about faith and belief. I know that adult circumcision is a bigger deal than for infants but men still opt for it for a whole range of reasons; opting for it as a matter of faith sends a big message and has such a depth of meaning, surely?
The notion of pressure to conform (whether from family or broader religious community) invalidates consent. One of the cornerstones for valid consent is that it is entirely voluntary, free from any coercion, pressure or duress to act in a particular way. I would strongly argue that parental consent for infant circumcision in many cases is not valid due to the pressures brought to bear on the parents to agree to circumcision.
-
Yes I agree that adult circumcision sends an important message about faith.
Primarily that you can get away with carrying out the most disgusting shit on babies and children if you claim you're doing it in the name of some idiotic belief system.
-
If there is majority public support that the right of a child to self-determination supercedes parental rights to decide what is in the best interests of the child, then there will be the political will to make the legislative changes.
But this is already enshrined in law, embedded in ethics declarations in the field of medicine already and has been for decades. What we have here is a bizarre anomaly - specifically because it abuts against religious convictions.
-
Primarily that you can get away with carrying out the most disgusting shit on babies and children if you claim you're doing it in the name of some idiotic belief system.
Thanks for sharing your belief system on this issue. All diverse views are welcome.
-
But this is already enshrined in law, embedded in ethics declarations in the field of medicine already and has been for decades. What we have here is a bizarre anomaly - specifically because it abuts against religious convictions.
Presumably because society currently believes there is a benefit and that it is in the child's socio-psychological best interests to participate in his parents' culture on this issue. There is no objective measure of the benefit so it remains for society and the courts to look at the ethical issues again and to change its mind on this and feel differently in order for there to be the political will to change the legislation.
-
Presumably because society currently believes there is a benefit and that it is in the child's socio-psychological best interests to participate in his parents' culture on this issue. There is no objective measure of the benefit so it remains for society and the courts to look at the ethical issues again and to change its mind on this and feel differently in order for there to be the political will to change the legislation.
No it is because society does not want to offend religious sensibilities.
In other area of medical ethics there is no presumption of benefit - quite the reverse. The presumptions are usually as follows for treatment (and even more so for any intervention that is not medically indicated - the best example perhaps being non therapeutic research).
Intervention can only be permitted with parental consent where it cannot be delayed until the child themselves is old enough to be able to consent - i.e. necessity of immediacy (infant circumcision fails on that ground)
That the benefits very clearly outweigh the potential harm (again infant circumcision fails)
Where the intervention is not therapeutic (as is the case for ritual circumcision) that unless the circumstances are exceptional, it should pose no more than a minimal risk to the subject (again infant circumcision fails)
That parental consent should, as a starting point, be the presumed will of the child (again infant circumcision fails) and must be in the child's best interests
That the parent giving consent must have the capacity to consent (no reason to suspect not), be sufficiently informed (question marks here) and that the decision will be entirely voluntary, free from duress, coercion or pressure (infant circumcision fails).
-
I would certainly challenge a Jewish poster about circumcision, just as I would challenge people of other faiths, like Catholics for instance, about the things their faith decrees, which I think are very wrong.
-
I'll challenge anyone. That isn't the same thing as 'turning on' someone. Rose specifically said that people who disagree with infant circumcision would turn on a Jewish poster. She was accusing us of mob mentality with an undercurrent of antisemitism and I find that worrying.
-
I'll challenge anyone. That isn't the same thing as 'turning on' someone. Rose specifically said that people who disagree with infant circumcision would turn on a Jewish poster. She was accusing us of mob mentality with an undercurrent of antisemitism and I find that worrying.
I think she was completely out of order, but now she is no longer with us, we can dismiss her opinions.
-
I think she was completely out of order, but now she is no longer with us, we can dismiss her opinions.
I wanted to understand her views but I found her insistence that the rights of parents and their communities matter more than the rights of babies and children unfathomable. But, ok, we all disagree about something. To then make it about antisemitism was uncalled for.
I expect Rose will be back.
-
I wanted to understand her views but I found her insistence that the rights of parents and their communities matter more than the rights of babies and children unfathomable. But, ok, we all disagree about something. To then make it about antisemitism was uncalled for.
I expect Rose will be back.
Possibly, this forum is addictive. :D
-
I wanted to understand her views but I found her insistence that the rights of parents and their communities matter more than the rights of babies and children unfathomable. But, ok, we all disagree about something. To then make it about antisemitism was uncalled for.
I agree - what I found infuriating was how she would phrase consent matters as if the child wasn't actually a separate person for the parents. That is like red rag to a bull if you have a principled belief in the critical importance of autonomy and consent.
And actually I found her focus on the Jewish community rather odd, with a fairly dismissive view on similar muslim ritual circumcision, despite the fact that the prevalence of muslim circumcision is massively higher than jewish (I think about four to one).
-
No one should be permitted to do anything to a child's body which isn't strictly medically necessary. I put ear piercing in this category. I have seen very young children with pierced ears, it can cause infection, and the child could swallow the earring if it managed to pull it out.
-
No it is because society does not want to offend religious sensibilities.
Unless there was some benefit to religious sensibilities there would be no worry about offending them.
In other area of medical ethics there is no presumption of benefit - quite the reverse. The presumptions are usually as follows for treatment (and even more so for any intervention that is not medically indicated - the best example perhaps being non therapeutic research).[
Intervention can only be permitted with parental consent where it cannot be delayed until the child themselves is old enough to be able to consent - i.e. necessity of immediacy (infant circumcision fails on that ground)
That the benefits very clearly outweigh the potential harm (again infant circumcision fails)
Where the intervention is not therapeutic (as is the case for ritual circumcision) that unless the circumstances are exceptional, it should pose no more than a minimal risk to the subject (again infant circumcision fails)
That parental consent should, as a starting point, be the presumed will of the child (again infant circumcision fails) and must be in the child's best interests
That the parent giving consent must have the capacity to consent (no reason to suspect not), be sufficiently informed (question marks here) and that the decision will be entirely voluntary, free from duress, coercion or pressure (infant circumcision fails).
In which case the perception of society is that religious sensibilities in this instance confer a benefit to society that outweighs the harm of circumcision. When that perception changes, so will the law. You need to come up with something better than just stating that there is no political will to upset religious groups - that decision was not random and did not happen in a vacuum. What is the motivation behind it?
-
Unless there was some benefit to religious sensibilities there would be no worry about offending them.
In which case the perception of society is that religious sensibilities in this instance confer a benefit to society that outweighs the harm of circumcision. When that perception changes, so will the law. You need to come up with something better than just stating that there is no political will to upset religious groups - that decision was not random and did not happen in a vacuum. What is the motivation behind it?
Mutilating a baby is not a benefit to society!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40520125
Maybe mouths should be stitched up! ::)
-
I'll challenge anyone. That isn't the same thing as 'turning on' someone. Rose specifically said that people who disagree with infant circumcision would turn on a Jewish poster. She was accusing us of mob mentality with an undercurrent of antisemitism and I find that worrying.
That's because there is a difference between challenging or disagreeing with someone and turning on someone. Turning on someone involves using emotive terms such as inhumane and barbaric etc. Challenging involves questioning their opinions without emotive terms. See the difference? She appeared to be accusing some of you of using overly emotive terms - I didn't see any accusations by Rose of antisemitism but I haven't read all the posts. Which reply # was that?
-
Unless there was some benefit to religious sensibilities there would be no worry about offending them.
In which case the perception of society is that religious sensibilities in this instance confer a benefit to society that outweighs the harm of circumcision. When that perception changes, so will the law. You need to come up with something better than just stating that there is no political will to upset religious groups - that decision was not random and did not happen in a vacuum. What is the motivation behind it?
You are ignoring the historical perspective. If we were starting from scratch, it is likely that MGM along with FGM, and other forms of wounding (tattooing, piercing), would be banned for children. But circumcision has historical prestige in certain religions, and many governments are reluctant to upset these constituencies. The German case shows this. I don't think Merkel calculated that religious groupings are beneficial for children, therefore we should permit MGM, but rather, that she didn't want to upset Jews and Muslims, as she wants a quiet life, in order to be re-elected.
-
Unless there was some benefit to religious sensibilities there would be no worry about offending them.
In which case the perception of society is that religious sensibilities in this instance confer a benefit to society that outweighs the harm of circumcision. When that perception changes, so will the law. You need to come up with something better than just stating that there is no political will to upset religious groups - that decision was not random and did not happen in a vacuum. What is the motivation behind it?
But medical ethics is very clearly not interested in the benefit to society, particularly where the individual subject (in this case the infant) cannot consent.
It is one of the most fundamental cornerstones of medical ethics that the interests of the individual always outweigh the interests of society. Indeed this is seen very clearly in non therapeutic research in which it is simply unacceptable to perform research without the individual consenting directly, or if they cannot consent that the research is seen to be in their individual best interests.
That the research might massively benefit society must not over-ride protection of and respect for the individual, especially so in cases where that individual cannot consent.
In every other case (except this one) the law changed decades ago - indeed was embedded in codes of medical ethics and regulation derived in the decade after the second world war. This isn't new.
-
I think she was completely out of order, but now she is no longer with us, we can dismiss her opinions.
Is that the royal "we"? Speak for yourself.
There are lots of posters who are no longer posting, but I have not dismissed the opinions that they did post. I still think about points they have made even though they are no longer here.
On the other hand, there are some posters who are currently posting whose opinions I find fairly easy to dismiss...
-
You are ignoring the historical perspective. If we were starting from scratch, it is likely that MGM along with FGM, and other forms of wounding (tattooing, piercing), would be banned for children. But circumcision has historical prestige in certain religions, and many governments are reluctant to upset these constituencies. The German case shows this. I don't think Merkel calculated that religious groupings are beneficial for children, therefore we should permit MGM, but rather, that she didn't want to upset Jews and Muslims, as she wants a quiet life, in order to be re-elected.
That's right - if circumcision didn't exist within religious cultures there isn't a hope in hell that it would be allowed in law if parents asked that their infant should be circumcised.
It is entirely about historical norm and not wishing to offend religious sensibilities.
There is also, in my view, a confusion about basic human rights in relation to religious freedom - this should be all about the individual (freedom of an individual to chose to follow a religion, to chose not to follow a religion and to be able to change their mind), however societies often see that to be about the religion itself, which makes no sense because the religion itself has no human rights, as it isn't a human. Nor can human rights be seen on a population basis (i.e. everyone does this so we should allow it regardless of the view of the individual) - where there is a collective, that collective only exists as a group of individuals each of whom must have their individual right to their individual view respected.
-
That's right - if circumcision didn't exist within religious cultures there isn't a hope in hell that it would be allowed in law if parents asked that their infant should be circumcised.
I agree.
-
That's because there is a difference between challenging or disagreeing with someone and turning on someone. Turning on someone involves using emotive terms such as inhumane and barbaric etc. Challenging involves questioning their opinions without emotive terms. See the difference? She appeared to be accusing some of you of using overly emotive terms - I didn't see any accusations by Rose of antisemitism but I haven't read all the posts. Which reply # was that?
Rose said
That's what concerns me, how people here would treat a Jewish person if they dared to come on here.
I would hate to think people here would turn on them because they were Jewish and wouldn't conform to the mindset on here.
That's an accusation of being anti Jewish - anti Semitic.
Some people do genuinely regard infant circumcision as barbaric and inhumane - it's not hyperbole. I don't think its a coincidence that those who regard it as such have never had a faith and so don't understand the importance of ritual and community first hand in that sense. I have had a faith and so maybe I understand it slightly more, I don't know - in the past I've defended ritual infant circumcision and it's probably no coincidence that my position has shifted since both having a son and losing what little faith I had left. I get why belonging and tradition is important, but it is possible to belong and be welcome and grow in a faith and make any decisions as to ritual commitment (spiritual as well as physical) as an adult when it is freely chosen and hugely meaningful.
-
That's because there is a difference between challenging or disagreeing with someone and turning on someone. Turning on someone involves using emotive terms such as inhumane and barbaric etc. Challenging involves questioning their opinions without emotive terms. See the difference? She appeared to be accusing some of you of using overly emotive terms - I didn't see any accusations by Rose of antisemitism but I haven't read all the posts. Which reply # was that?
Reply #582 on: July 06, 2017, 08:21:18 PM »
-
You are ignoring the historical perspective. If we were starting from scratch, it is likely that MGM along with FGM, and other forms of wounding (tattooing, piercing), would be banned for children. But circumcision has historical prestige in certain religions, and many governments are reluctant to upset these constituencies. The German case shows this. I don't think Merkel calculated that religious groupings are beneficial for children, therefore we should permit MGM, but rather, that she didn't want to upset Jews and Muslims, as she wants a quiet life, in order to be re-elected.
Possibly. Or possibly it wasn't about re-election but about ethics.
The German case shows that courts will take a view on whether the child's right to autonomy and the child's well-being trumps the parents' right to make decisions about the best physical/ social/ psychological/ emotional interests of the child, which includes the freedom of religious practice. It is open to other courts to take the same view since the wording of the law passed in Germany, with apparently the agreement of representatives of the Muslim and Jewish community, was that the circumcision must not pose a danger to the child's well-being, and the wishes of children old enough to express them also need to be taken into account. .
-
Rose said
That's what concerns me, how people here would treat a Jewish person if they dared to come on here.
I would hate to think people here would turn on them because they were Jewish and wouldn't conform to the mindset on here.
That's an accusation of being anti Jewish - anti Semitic.
Some people do genuinely regard infant circumcision as barbaric and inhumane - it's not hyperbole. I don't think its a coincidence that those who regard it as such have never had a faith and so don't understand the importance of ritual and community first hand in that sense. I have had a faith and so maybe I understand it slightly more, I don't know - in the past I've defended ritual infant circumcision and it's probably no coincidence that my position has shifted since both having a son and losing what little faith I had left. I get why belonging and tradition is important, but it is possible to belong and be welcome and grow in a faith and make any decisions as to ritual commitment (spiritual as well as physical) as an adult when it is freely chosen and hugely meaningful.
That's right - I am not anti semitic, I am anti infant circumcision, on principle.
I am equally anti infant circumcision regardless of whether it is justified by reference to Jewish scripture and traditions, or muslim scripture and traditions, or simply on the basis that parents want it done because 'that's what you do'.
The only justifiable claim of anti-semiticism would be if any of us here opposed infant circumcisions justified by reference to Jewish scripture and traditions but happily supported it justified on other non therapeutic grounds.
I don't think any of us here who oppose infant circumcision have done that. Indeed if anything there seems to be greater challenge to Rose who seems obsessed with there rights of jewish parents, but seems rather casually dismissive of muslim and non religious parents requests for infant circumcision.
-
I forgot also the massive guilt in Germany about Jewish people, for obvious reasons. There is no way that Merkel would support criminalization of MGM, as she would expect to face accusations about German treatment of Jews. This would be intolerable for her.
-
That's right - I am not anti semitic, I am anti infant circumcision, on principle.
I am equally anti infant circumcision regardless of whether it is justified by reference to Jewish scripture and traditions, or muslim scripture and traditions, or simply on the basis that parents want it done because 'that's what you do'.
The only justifiable claim of anti-semiticism would be if any of us here opposed infant circumcisions justified by reference to Jewish scripture and traditions but happily supported it justified on other non therapeutic grounds.
I don't think any of us here who oppose infant circumcision have done that. Indeed if anything there seems to be greater challenge to Rose who seems obsessed with there rights of jewish parents, but seems rather casually dismissive of muslim and non religious parents requests for infant circumcision.
Good post.
-
But medical ethics is very clearly not interested in the benefit to society, particularly where the individual subject (in this case the infant) cannot consent.
It is one of the most fundamental cornerstones of medical ethics that the interests of the individual always outweigh the interests of society. Indeed this is seen very clearly in non therapeutic research in which it is simply unacceptable to perform research without the individual consenting directly, or if they cannot consent that the research is seen to be in their individual best interests.
That the research might massively benefit society must not over-ride protection of and respect for the individual, especially so in cases where that individual cannot consent.
In every other case (except this one) the law changed decades ago - indeed was embedded in codes of medical ethics and regulation derived in the decade after the second world war. This isn't new.
Ok sorry - by benefit to society, I meant that society sees a benefit to the individual and benefiting the individual benefits society. On the basis that stable, happy individuals tend to benefit society.
-
That's right - I am not anti semitic, I am anti infant circumcision, on principle.
I am equally anti infant circumcision regardless of whether it is justified by reference to Jewish scripture and traditions, or muslim scripture and traditions, or simply on the basis that parents want it done because 'that's what you do'.
The only justifiable claim of anti-semiticism would be if any of us here opposed infant circumcisions justified by reference to Jewish scripture and traditions but happily supported it justified on other non therapeutic grounds.
I don't think any of us here who oppose infant circumcision have done that. Indeed if anything there seems to be greater challenge to Rose who seems obsessed with there rights of jewish parents, but seems rather casually dismissive of muslim and non religious parents requests for infant circumcision.
Agreed. I've mentioned before that my first partner was circumcised and I know it caused him difficulties. His parents had it done because they had been influenced by American friends as to the 'medical benefits' - it certainly wasn't usual in the area that I grew up.
-
Possibly. Or possibly it wasn't about re-election but about ethics.
The German case shows that courts will take a view on whether the child's right to autonomy and the child's well-being trumps the parents' right to make decisions about the best physical/ social/ psychological/ emotional interests of the child, which includes the freedom of religious practice. It is open to other courts to take the same view since the wording of the law passed in Germany, with apparently the agreement of representatives of the Muslim and Jewish community, was that the circumcision must not pose a danger to the child's well-being, and the wishes of children old enough to express them also need to be taken into account. .
I think you are misunderstanding the German situation.
The issue was considered within the courts, who looked at the ethics and legality of infant circumcision. They rule that it was unlawful as it contravened the fundamental rights of the child based on established medical ethics principles.
The decision was reversed, not by another court looking at the same ethical and legal issues, but by parliament. Over-turning the ban was a political decision, and had nothing to do with assessment of fundamental ethical principles in medical context, but because it was politically unpalatable to stand up against exceptionally strong lobbying from religious groups. Of course the historical context of Germany did not help in that regard.
The protection of the individual child and his individual rights was sacrificed for political expediency and the power of the religious lobby.
-
Rose said
That's what concerns me, how people here would treat a Jewish person if they dared to come on here.
I would hate to think people here would turn on them because they were Jewish and wouldn't conform to the mindset on here.
That's an accusation of being anti Jewish - anti Semitic.
I didn't read it as an accusation of anti-Semitism because the Jewish part was qualified by the refusal to conform to the mindset on here. I read it as Rose felt people turned on her because she would not conform to the mindset on here and therefore they would also turn on Jewish people who also did not conform to the mindset, as opposed to Jewish people who were against infant circumcision themselves.
Some people do genuinely regard infant circumcision as barbaric and inhumane - it's not hyperbole. I don't think its a coincidence that those who regard it as such have never had a faith and so don't understand the importance of ritual and community first hand in that sense. I have had a faith and so maybe I understand it slightly more, I don't know - in the past I've defended ritual infant circumcision and it's probably no coincidence that my position has shifted since both having a son and losing what little faith I had left. I get why belonging and tradition is important, but it is possible to belong and be welcome and grow in a faith and make any decisions as to ritual commitment (spiritual as well as physical) as an adult when it is freely chosen and hugely meaningful.
I am sure they do genuinely regard it as barbaric and inhumane. I thought Rose's point was that insulting people in that way if they do not want to make infant circumcision illegal, was not designed to persuade them to change their mind, but was just some posters venting, because they can and she considered that to be turning on people.
Is there an objective definition of the phrase "turning on people"? If not, then she felt bullied and turned on and her opinion on this is as valid as anyone else's.
-
Ok sorry - by benefit to society, I meant that society sees a benefit to the individual and benefiting the individual benefits society. On the basis that stable, happy individuals tend to benefit society.
I don't disagree with that. But what does that have to do with non consensual mutilation of an infant boy's penis. And in other circumstances we do no curtail the rights of an individual to achieve some kid of top-down nirvana of happy, stable individuals. This sounds rather Orwellian, or perhaps rather lie the 1950s where all were told what to do and required to confirm to achieve stable society. We don't work like that any more, thankfully, because we have recognised that curtailing individual's abilities to chose and shape their own lives doesn't lead to 'happy, stable individuals' but unhappy and frustrated ones.
-
I think you are misunderstanding the German situation.
The issue was considered within the courts, who looked at the ethics and legality of infant circumcision. They rule that it was unlawful as it contravened the fundamental rights of the child based on established medical ethics principles.
The decision was reversed, not by another court looking at the same ethical and legal issues, but by parliament. Over-turning the ban was a political decision, and had nothing to do with assessment of fundamental ethical principles in medical context, but because it was politically unpalatable to stand up against exceptionally strong lobbying from religious groups. Of course the historical context of Germany did not help in that regard.
The protection of the individual child and his individual rights was sacrificed for political expediency and the power of the religious lobby.
Since the wording of the law that was passed is that the circumcision must not pose a danger to the child's well-being, it was left open to the courts to interpret the law as to whether the circumcision poses a danger or not in any particular case.
Lobbying from religious groups amounted to them stating that circumcision was not harmful enough to stop the practice, as there were psychological, social and emotional benefits to the child that out-weighed the harm. It was debated in Germany before the law was passed and people's views were canvassed. As more and more people who have been circumcised come forward to lobby that the harm of circumcision outweighed the benefits, there will be a change in the law. Until then politicians can't make a decision about the harm on behalf of people who are not stating in sufficient numbers that they have been harmed.
There is no historical context in the UK - so presumably we can expect a test case sometime soon.
-
I don't disagree with that. But what does that have to do with non consensual mutilation of an infant boy's penis. And in other circumstances we do no curtail the rights of an individual to achieve some kid of top-down nirvana of happy, stable individuals. This sounds rather Orwellian, or perhaps rather lie the 1950s where all were told what to do and required to confirm to achieve stable society. We don't work like that any more, thankfully, because we have recognised that curtailing individual's abilities to chose and shape their own lives doesn't lead to 'happy, stable individuals' but unhappy and frustrated ones.
It is not so much that society tells individuals to conform. It seems more that some/ many individuals seem to want family acceptance and bonding and identity and feel unhappy when they do not get it. If individuals are happy to go it alone without the family support and community network that is built on shared cultural experiences and traditions then there is no psychological or social benefit to a child to have that bond, and the harm of circumcision outweighs the benefit to the individual.
-
As more and more people who have been circumcised come forward to lobby that the harm of circumcision outweighed the benefits, there will be a change in the law.
But for pretty obvious reasons that is going to be very difficult. If you have your foreskin removed at a few weeks old it is going to be pretty difficult to understand what you have lost (other than purely anatomically) because you have nothing to compare it with - same applies to what you might potentially have gained.
But that again is missing the point - we don't permit parents to tattoo their children and accept that until we get 'more and more people who have been tattooed come forward to lobby that the harm of infant tattooing outweighed the benefits'.
And actually the issue is about consent - so it isn't about whether an individual has a view about what was done to them, but that the choice should be theirs, and theirs alone.
-
What I find ironic is that both Rose and Gabriella are obviously supporting Judaism and Islam respectively, in their arguments for MGM. I don't think this is discreditable at all. But it starts to seem disingenuous when the arguments are couched in general terms about the individual and society and human rights.
-
Is there an objective definition of the phrase "turning on people"? If not, then she felt bullied and turned on and her opinion on this is as valid as anyone else's.
I think you have to put an allegation of people 'turning on' Jews in the context of what has happened historically when 'the mob' has indeed turned on Jewish people, from Medieval times here in the UK and Europe through to the events of the twentieth century and beyond. It's a disgusting thing to accuse people of without justification.
Rose happens to hold a minority view on a subject that some feel very strongly about. It happens. I do think it takes courage to argue in the face of that but it doesn't mean she is being bullied.
-
It is not so much that society tells individuals to conform.
It is exactly that - the only 'benefit' seems to be that being circumcised without your consent will allow you to confirm and fit in with society (in this case the narrow religious community). So it is pretty well exactly that the individual is being told that confirming with their societal norms is in their best interest, regardless of their individual view on the matter.
Any this seems to ride roughshod over the basic concept of consent - if there is any kind of pressure to conform then the decision isn't being taken entirely voluntarily, i.e. without any pressure, coercion or duress.
-
But for pretty obvious reasons that is going to be very difficult. If you have your foreskin removed at a few weeks old it is going to be pretty difficult to understand what you have lost (other than purely anatomically) because you have nothing to compare it with - same applies to what you might potentially have gained.
But that again is missing the point - we don't permit parents to tattoo their children and accept that until we get 'more and more people who have been tattooed come forward to lobby that the harm of infant tattooing outweighed the benefits'.
That presumably is because there is no historical context in the UK of tattooing, which forms part of any shared heritage or tradition that families use to provide a sense of cultural identity for their children. For whatever reason parents providing cultural identity is considered beneficial to children, and it appears to come down to a question of whether the harm in practices they engage in to provide that cultural identity outweighs the benefit.
And actually the issue is about consent - so it isn't about whether an individual has a view about what was done to them, but that the choice should be theirs, and theirs alone.
That consent trumps all other considerations has not gained sufficient traction in this particular issue yet. As values in society change, it may well become the deciding factor in relation to this issue.
-
It is exactly that - the only 'benefit' seems to be that being circumcised without your consent will allow you to confirm and fit in with society (in this case the narrow religious community). So it is pretty well exactly that the individual is being told that confirming with their societal norms is in their best interest, regardless of their individual view on the matter.
I disagree. Individuals are free to decide, based on their own experiences, that conforming is not in their best interests and then they can choose to allow their own children the freedom to not conform - and the practice of circumcision will die out. Or they can lobby for a change in the law - much like the pressure to outlaw smacking. That there are many individuals who think there is a benefit to the child of allowing parents to choose what is in the best interests of their child on this issue and do not want circumcision banned may be the current situation but that could change in the future.
Any this seems to ride roughshod over the basic concept of consent - if there is any kind of pressure to conform then the decision isn't being taken entirely voluntarily, i.e. without any pressure, coercion or duress.
Not really sure how much of my decisions on anything are entirely free of a pressure to conform.
-
I disagree. Individuals are free to decide, based on their own experiences, that conforming is not in their best interests and then they can choose to allow their own children the freedom to not conform - and the practice of circumcision will die out.
But in the case of infant circumcision the individual is most definitely not free to choose - the operation has been performed without their consent, it is irreversible - they have not been allowed to choose.
The issue of their children is a complete red herring - that they may choose to allow their children to have freedom to choose doesn't alter the fact that they haven't had the freedom to choose.
-
I think you have to put an allegation of people 'turning on' Jews in the context of what has happened historically when 'the mob' has indeed turned on Jewish people, from Medieval times here in the UK and Europe through to the events of the twentieth century and beyond. It's a disgusting thing to accuse people of without justification.
I think it is more relevant to put an allegation in the context of what was happening on this board at the time the allegation was made rather than look to Medieval times for context. There was no allegation that people turned on Jews. There was an allegation that people might turn on a Jewish poster because they held a particular viewpoint that was opposed on this board, and Rose thought that a Jewish poster would feel more sensitive about the issue than Rose would, as she is not Jewish but she felt bullied and turned on. That's how I read it. My mind did not leap to thoughts about Medieval mobs - I looked at the actual words and noted that she qualified her statement by talking only about Jewish people who held a particular viewpoint and that the holding of the viewpoint was what would cause them to be turned on.
Rose happens to hold a minority view on a subject that some feel very strongly about. It happens. I do think it takes courage to argue in the face of that but it doesn't mean she is being bullied.
As I said, my view is that you are entitled to your opinion that Rose was not being bullied, as much as Rose is entitled to her opinion that she was being bullied.
-
Not really sure how much of my decisions on anything are entirely free of a pressure to conform.
But in a medical context (and that is what we are talking about) if your decision isn't entirely free from duress, pressure or coercion (and that includes the most overt and the most subtle, for example due to power relationships) then consent is not valid.
So if you are saying that in the case of surgery on an infant that the decision is subject to pressure to conform to your culture and society then there isn't valid consent. That's the law.
-
But in the case of infant circumcision the individual is most definitely not free to choose - the operation has been performed without their consent, it is irreversible - they have not been allowed to choose.
The issue of their children is a complete red herring - that they may choose to allow their children to have freedom to choose doesn't alter the fact that they haven't had the freedom to choose.
I understand that for you and many others on this board, the issue of consent trumps all other considerations. My point was that the idea that consent trumps everything else regarding the cultural practice of circumcision has not gained traction yet. If it had, we wouldn't be having this debate. The test case or new law banning infant circumcision, when it happens, will demonstrate the importance of consent in the mind of the public, the judiciary or Parliament.
-
But in a medical context (and that is what we are talking about) if your decision isn't entirely free from duress, pressure or coercion (and that includes the most overt and the most subtle, for example due to power relationships) then consent is not valid.
So if you are saying that in the case of surgery on an infant that the decision is subject to pressure to conform to your culture and society then there isn't valid consent. That's the law.
Then there should be no problem bringing a case to court on the matter - it should not be too difficult to show that people feel pressured to conform, even if nothing is explicitly stated. My understanding is that it is a widely held belief that people generally like to conform and fit in in varying degrees with their peer groups. My daughter got a cartilage piercing for that very reason.
My experience is that I have felt pressure from family members to have certain medical procedures because they deemed it in my best interests and I am pretty cavalier about my well-being. I have not really considered doing anything about the procedures I seem to have had without there having been valid consent.
-
I understand that for you and many others on this board, the issue of consent trumps all other considerations.
You seem to imply this to be some kind of 'your view, my view' nothing is settled kind of issue. It isn't - it isn't just me (and a few other on this board) who consider that consent trumps - this is fundamentally embedded in virtually all aspects of our law.
What is rape? Non consensual sex. Why is it that if a surgeon uses a knife to create a gaping wound but if a person on the street does the same one is seen to be OK the other not. It isn't the good intentions of the surgeon, nope it is consent. If a surgeon fails to get consent it is just as much assault a the knife attacker. And so on and so on.
No the critical importance of consent in all aspects of our lives is settled.
-
Then there should be no problem bringing a case to court on the matter - it should not be too difficult to show that people feel pressured to conform, even if nothing is explicitly stated. My understanding is that it is a widely held belief that people generally like to conform and fit in in varying degrees with their peer groups. My daughter got a cartilage piercing for that very reason.
How many days old was she when that was done?
-
I understand that for you and many others on this board, the issue of consent trumps all other considerations. My point was that the idea that consent trumps everything else regarding the cultural practice of circumcision has not gained traction yet. If it had, we wouldn't be having this debate. The test case or new law banning infant circumcision, when it happens, will demonstrate the importance of consent in the mind of the public, the judiciary or Parliament.
I thought that consent now does trump everything in English law in relation to medicine and related stuff. The Charlie Gard case shows this - parental rights do not supersede children's rights, but in the US, this case arouses horror in some people, as (I think) in the US parental rights are dominant. The right wing are trying to cause a fuss over it, but I doubt if it will gain traction, partly because in the UK, people rate medical opinion very highly.
As to a test case on MGM, I'm not sure, as there is great fear of opposing religious groups. As Prof. D. has said, FGM is hardly being pursued with vigour. I was wondering about scarification, but I don't think this happens in the UK. Correction, it does, but not to kids.
-
You seem to imply this to be some kind of 'your view, my view' nothing is settled kind of issue. It isn't - it isn't just me (and a few other on this board) who consider that consent trumps - this is fundamentally embedded in virtually all aspects of our law.
What is rape? Non consensual sex. Why is it that if a surgeon uses a knife to create a gaping wound but if a person on the street does the same one is seen to be OK the other not. It isn't the good intentions of the surgeon, nope it is consent. If a surgeon fails to get consent it is just as much assault a the knife attacker. And so on and so on.
No the critical importance of consent in all aspects of our lives is settled.
No, I wasn't implying anything. I was actually stating that currently the inability of the infant to consent does not prevent circumcisions being lawful, if the parents consent on behalf of the infant. So in relation to this particular issue the infant's lack of consent is not the over-riding consideration.
-
How many days old was she when that was done?
She was old enough to feel pressure to conform when she consented to the procedure.
-
My point was that the idea that consent trumps everything else regarding the cultural practice of circumcision has not gained traction yet.
I disagree - I don't think the issue is about recognising the importance of consent - it is more about an inconsistency in assessing best interests in these cases and other cases involving surgical procedures on an infant where it is not medically required.
Actually in some respects there is an over reliance on consent (in theory), albeit a laxity in assessing best interests, and this indicates a significant level of disquiet in the medical and legal communities.
So the basic principle in medical ethics (and the law) is that someone with parental responsibility may consent to a surgical procedure on a child in their best interests. Infant circumcision is unique in this context (and almost unique in the whole of medical ethics) in requiring both parents to consent. In every other instance ethically and legally the consent of only one parent is required. This suggests to me that the medical and legal profession recognise that they are on very thin ice and feel comforted by a 'belt and braces' approach.
Just in case you are wondering about my other example (which isn't really relevant to surgery but interesting none the less). The only other example where consent from both parents is required legally is consent to treatment, storage and/ research on an embryo created via in vitro fertilisation.
-
She was old enough to feel pressure to conform when she consented to the procedure.
Ah yes. The elusive old consent thingy.
-
I thought that consent now does trump everything in English law in relation to medicine and related stuff. The Charlie Gard case shows this - parental rights do not supersede children's rights, but in the US, this case arouses horror in some people, as (I think) in the US parental rights are dominant. The right wing are trying to cause a fuss over it, but I doubt if it will gain traction, partly because in the UK, people rate medical opinion very highly.
I thought the Charlie Gard decision was that the likely harm from pursuing treatment in the US or keeping him on a ventilator, existing but not really living a life with any quality, outweighed the likely benefits from the treatment.
As to a test case on MGM, I'm not sure, as there is great fear of opposing religious groups. As Prof. D. has said, FGM is hardly being pursued with vigour. I was wondering about scarification, but I don't think this happens in the UK. Correction, it does, but not to kids.
Well Prof Davey posted something to say the UK is officially not religious. Where does this incapacitating fear come from if more than 50% of the electorate are no religious?
-
Ah yes. The elusive old consent thingy.
Consent while feeling pressured to conform is not valid consent according to Prof Davey.
-
As regards the incapacitating fear about religious groups - good question. I think in most of Europe there is massive guilt about Jewish people, so it's hard to oppose Jewish MGM, and with Islam, government probably see it like poking a wasps' nest.
-
Consent while feeling pressured to conform is not valid consent according to Prof Davey.
And was your daughter pressured to conform, or did she have something done that she wanted done?
-
Prof Davey posted something to say the UK is officially not religious. Where does this incapacitating fear come from if more than 50% of the electorate are no religious?
Elements of the political class I'd venture rather than the electorate.
-
And was your daughter pressured to conform, or did she have something done that she wanted done?
My view is it was a subtle pressure to conform. Is there any objective way to determine this?
-
As to a test case on MGM, I'm not sure, as there is great fear of opposing religious groups. As Prof. D. has said, FGM is hardly being pursued with vigour. I was wondering about scarification, but I don't think this happens in the UK. Correction, it does, but not to kids.
I think that is right.
It doesn't just need a water tight legal case for there to be an agreement to prosecute - the CPS will also need to decide that the prosecution is in the public interest, and this is where the CPS is often very wary at wing in on issues that will offend religious sensibilities. There tends to be a desire not to rock the boat, and we have seen this not just on FGM and MGM but also on the tardiness to investigate and prosecute in institutional abuse cases involving religions. The police and CPS has been more assiduous in pursuing non religious cases (e.g. BBC, children's homes etc) than those that might lend to claims of targeting religious groups, particularly minority religious groups.
There is a further element, which is a reluctance to go after parents to protect a child - although children may be removed by social services, there is often a reluctance to prosecute parents for abuse of their children. And this may lie behind the both parent consent approach. It means that they will shy away from probing when both parents consent (although that doesn't make the consent any more valid in principle nor does it guarantee the decision is in the child's best interests). They are much more happy when the issue is a disagreement between parents, so the issue is parent vs parent rather than parent vs child.
-
My view is it was a subtle pressure to conform. Is there any objective way to determine this?
You could try asking, I suppose.
-
And was your daughter pressured to conform, or did she have something done that she wanted done?
Even if she were under pressure, she consented for a procedure done to herself. Not another who was unable to have a voice.
And piercings heal.
-
Well Prof Davey posted something to say the UK is officially not religious. Where does this incapacitating fear come from if more than 50% of the electorate are no religious?
This isn't about majorities and electorates - it is about ethics and human rights, which is about protecting individuals.
-
No, I wasn't implying anything. I was actually stating that currently the inability of the infant to consent does not prevent circumcisions being lawful, if the parents consent on behalf of the infant. So in relation to this particular issue the infant's lack of consent is not the over-riding consideration.
As indicated to Rose, the issue of lawfulness has not been proven. Simply because there isn't a legal challenge doesn't mean something is lawful. It seems to be pretty universally accepted that in the UK the lawfulness of infant circumcision remains unclear - it may be assumed to be lawful with parental consent, but that doesn't mean it actually is lawful unless or until there is a definitive judgement in the courts, or from parliament. We don't have that currently.
-
As regards the incapacitating fear about religious groups - good question. I think in most of Europe there is massive guilt about Jewish people, so it's hard to oppose Jewish MGM, and with Islam, government probably see it like poking a wasps' nest.
I find it very strange that collective guilt about not helping vulnerable people during the Final Solution should lead people to refrain from helping other vulnerable people.
As for Muslims, the silent majority in the UK probably would be ok with their kids having the op later when they could consent to it if that was the legal requirement, especially as there are non-surgical techniques being developed. There is no requirement to have it done at birth - it just seems simpler and easier to care for the wound and heals quicker if done at birth so parents think their kids will prefer it if parents got it done then. But I know people who had it done later. And it is not compulsory to be circumcised.
-
As indicated to Rose, the issue of lawfulness has not been provide. Simply because there isn't a legal challenge doesn't mean something is lawful. It seems to be pretty universally accepted that in the UK the lawfulness of infant circumcision remains unclear - it may be assumed to be lawful with parental consent, but that doesn't mean it actually is lawful unless or until there is a definitive judgement in the courts, or from parliament. We don't have that currently.
Ok - currently the inability of the infant to consent does not prevent circumcisions being assumed to be lawful, if the parents consent on behalf of the infant. So in relation to this particular issue the infant's lack of consent is not the over-riding consideration until a test case decides otherwise.
-
I find it very strange that collective guilt about not helping vulnerable people during the Final Solution should lead people to refrain from helping other vulnerable people.
As for Muslims, the silent majority in the UK probably would be ok with their kids having the op later when they could consent to it if that was the legal requirement, especially as there are non-surgical techniques being developed. There is no requirement to have it done at birth - it just seems simpler and easier to care for the wound and heals quicker if done at birth so parents think their kids will prefer it if parents got it done then. But I know people who had it done later. And it is not compulsory to be circumcised.
I suspect also there is a concern that if it is left to the individual themselves to choose, the likely response in many, if not most cases will be 'on your bike - I'm not having a part chopped off my penis'.
-
This isn't about majorities and electorates - it is about ethics and human rights, which is about protecting individuals.
Ethics and human rights don't exist objectively - they are decided by consensus depending on the subjective will of people.
-
I suspect also there is a concern that if it is left to the individual themselves to choose, the likely response in many, if not most cases will be 'on your bike - I'm not having a part chopped off my penis'.
Maybe. But my experience of Islam is that intention is the over-riding factor - so fasting, praying, and all other expressions of faith are the responsibility of the individual and part of the belief is that individuals have to account only for their own actions and intentions on the Day of Judgement. So if children old enough to decide, choose not to fast, pray or be circumcised they alone will be responsible for that decision.
-
Ok - currently the inability of the infant to consent does not prevent circumcisions being assumed to be lawful, if the parents consent on behalf of the infant. So in relation to this particular issue the infant's lack of consent is not the over-riding consideration until a test case decides otherwise.
So far so unremarkable - in any surgery on an infant parental consent is required, but you are missing the key points, which are that:
1. The operation cannot be reasonably delayed until a point when the child is capably of consenting.
2. Parents saying they want it done is completely irrelevant (infants aren't their parents' plaything) - the decision must be in the best interest of the child.
3. That any benefit must significantly outweigh the risks
It is on these elements that the assessment seems unduly lax compared to comparable consent to surgery on an infant. And that laxity, in my view, is due to a reluctance to offend the sensitivities of religious groups.
-
You could try asking, I suppose.
Would she be aware of how much she was influenced by a pressure to conform? A few of them in her class suddenly started walking around with new cartilage piercings - maybe it was a coincidence.
-
Ethics and human rights don't exist objectively - they are decided by consensus depending on the subjective will of people.
And then they are upheld to benefit and protect individuals regardless of the 'majority view'. Which is why human rights are protected by judicial systems that are independent of government and the whims of 'the tyranny of the majority'.
-
So far so unremarkable - in any surgery on an infant parental consent is required, but you are missing the key points, which are that:
1. The operation cannot be reasonably delayed until a point when the child is capably of consenting.
2. Parents saying they want it done is completely irrelevant (infants aren't their parents' plaything) - the decision must be in the best interest of the child.
3. That any benefit must significantly outweigh the risks
It is on these elements that the assessment seems unduly lax compared to comparable consent to surgery on an infant. And that laxity, in my view, is due to a reluctance to offend the sensitivities of religious groups.
Isn't that what the whole debate has been about -the opposing views of what is in the best interests of the child? There is currently a view that the psychological and social benefit is in the best interests of the child and significantly outweighs the risks of circumcision.
-
Maybe. But my experience of Islam is that intention is the over-riding factor - so fasting, praying, and all other expressions of faith are the responsibility of the individual and part of the belief is that individuals have to account only for their own actions and intentions on the Day of Judgement. So if children old enough to decide, choose not to fast, pray or be circumcised they alone will be responsible for that decision.
But that works against the whole concept of infant circumcision - as by definition that infant has no intention to get circumcised, nor can they be held accountable for that action, as it wasn't their choice.
-
Would she be aware of how much she was influenced by a pressure to conform?
You seem to think that you are aware of a subtle pressure to conform - if when asked she relates that there was no such pressure then surely that at the very least has equal weight to your feeling, and I would say possibly more.
-
And then they are upheld to benefit and protect individuals regardless of the 'majority view'. Which is why human rights are protected by judicial systems that are independent of government and the whims of 'the tyranny of the majority'.
Which still means the views of the judges needs to be ascertained through a test case and a consensus reached. Or Parliament needs to pass a law banning circumcision. whereby MPs are not worried about losing their seats.
-
Isn't that what the whole debate has been about -the opposing views of what is in the best interests of the child? There is currently a view that the psychological and social benefit is in the best interests of the child and significantly outweighs the risks of circumcision.
In part, but the issue is applying universal and consistent standard to assessment of best interests. There are plenty of other situations where you might make the same claim, but there wouldn't be a hope in hell that an irreversible operation with clear physical and psychological risks would be contemplated without individual (not parental) consent, or at the very least individual assent.
-
But that works against the whole concept of infant circumcision - as by definition that infant has no intention to get circumcised, nor can they be held accountable for that action, as it wasn't their choice.
It's a current cultural practice because it is deemed easier for all involved if circumcision happens during infancy. If the law changes, and the child's consent is required, I am not really seeing the problem for Muslim parents since they would be off the hook anyway for the decisions their children make, once they are old enough to consent.
-
It's a current cultural practice because it is deemed easier for all involved if circumcision happens during infancy. If the law changes, and the child's consent is required, I am not really seeing the problem for Muslim parents since they would be off the hook anyway for the decisions their children make, once they are old enough to consent.
It might be deemed easier but it is still not right to do it.
-
It might be deemed easier but it is still not right to do it.
Indeed. Making it easier to do a wrong thing isn't within my parameters of moral behaviour.
-
I have just found this interesting article.
https://www.circinfo.org/Jews_against_circumcision.html
-
You seem to think that you are aware of a subtle pressure to conform - if when asked she relates that there was no such pressure then surely that at the very least has equal weight to your feeling, and I would say possibly more.
Maybe other parents of girls can help with this?
My kids are constantly telling me that they feel under pressure to conform - they volunteer that information. My older daughter makes comments such as in school it is social death to be fat unless you really have something else going for you and that she has seen kids be somewhat bullied or isolated for it. Or that she was bullied and had no friends after a bad haircut in Year 3, until it grew out.
-
It's a current cultural practice because it is deemed easier for all involved if circumcision happens during infancy.
How can you say 'easier for all involved' - how can it be easier for the infant when you don't know whether they want it to happen. If the infant doesn't want it to happen (or rather doesn't want it when they are old enough to consent) it is of course easier not to have the operation when they are an infant as they will never have the operation.
What you actually mean is that it is easier to ensure that it happens regardless of the subsequent view of the infant.
You are beginning to come over all Rose like - seemingly completely ignore the most important person in the whole situation - the baby.
-
It might be deemed easier but it is still not right to do it.
Whether it is in the best interests of the child i.e. "right" still remains to be determined by a test case. Of course it won't be an objective measure of what is "right" but it will clarify the views of the judiciary.
-
It's a current cultural practice because it is deemed easier for all involved if circumcision happens during infancy.
Was it easier for Goodluck Caubergs.
Was it easier for Angelo Ofori-Mintah
Was it easier for Amitai Moshe
Was it easier for Celian Monthe Noumbiwe
Was it easier for Oliver Asante Yeboah
To name just five
-
How can you say 'easier for all involved' - how can it be easier for the infant when you don't know whether they want it to happen. If the infant doesn't want it to happen (or rather doesn't want it when they are old enough to consent) it is of course easier not to have the operation when they are an infant as they will never have the operation.
What you actually mean is that it is easier to ensure that it happens regardless of the subsequent view of the infant.
You are beginning to come over all Rose like - seemingly completely ignore the most important person in the whole situation - the baby.
No, what I actually mean is that having spoken to the few people I know who had it done later, they would have preferred to have had it done when they were a baby. The only reason they didn't is because the mother couldn't bear the idea of dealing with it but once the kids were old enough to understand the religious and cultural beliefs about circumcision, they went ahead with it but when I spoke to them as adults one said it had hurt and took longer to heal than if it had happened to him when he was a baby, another person said it interrupted their sports activities, another said it was more embarrassing.
But if you want to make assumptions about what I mean, you go ahead - all opinions welcome here.
-
Maybe other parents of girls can help with this?
My kids are constantly telling me that they feel under pressure to conform - they volunteer that information. My older daughter makes comments such as in school it is social death to be fat unless you really have something else going for you and that she has seen kids be somewhat bullied or isolated for it. Or that she was bullied and had no friends after a bad haircut in Year 3, until it grew out.
I am so very glad I never wished to conform, even if there was pressure on me to do so. Our girls have always done their own thing too and not bowed to social pressure
-
Was it easier for Goodluck Caubergs.
Was it easier for Angelo Ofori-Mintah
Was it easier for Amitai Moshe
Was it easier for Celian Monthe Noumbiwe
Was it easier for Oliver Asante Yeboah
To name just five
As I said if the statistical risk of harm outweighs the benefit then the law should clarify that infant circumcision is not lawful.
-
No, what I actually mean is that having spoken to the few people I know who had it done later, they would have preferred to have had it done when they were a baby.
So if you want to have it done you might have preferred to have had it done as a baby, but not having it done as a baby doesn't preclude you having it done later.
If you do not want it done, clearly you would prefer that it wasn't done as a baby, and the crucial difference being that having it done as a baby does preclude you from your choice of being uncircumcised.
So saying that it is better done as an infant presumes that you know what the ultimate choice regarding circumcised vs not circumcised is once that baby grows up - which you of course cannot know.
-
I am so very glad I never wished to conform, even if there was pressure on me to do so. Our girls have always done their own thing too and not bowed to social pressure
I remember my brother getting involved in a fight and being cut with a knife because he felt a pressure to step in and help the group he was a part of. So it was wrong of me to just mention girls.
-
As I said if the statistical risk of harm outweighs the benefit then the law should clarify that infant circumcision is not lawful.
Not a good enough answer - you are sounding like a politician.
What I asked in relation to your statement that 'it is deemed easier for all involved if circumcision happens during infancy' was:
Was it easier for Goodluck Caubergs.
Was it easier for Angelo Ofori-Mintah
Was it easier for Amitai Moshe
Was it easier for Celian Monthe Noumbiwe
Was it easier for Oliver Asante Yeboah
You have failed to answer - I am asking about these specific cases - five dead babies, everyone of whom would have lived had it not been for infant circumcision. And by the way, these are just in the past few years so pretty well confirming that few of one death per 11,000 circumcisions.
-
So if you want to have it done you might have preferred to have had it done as a baby, but not having it done as a baby doesn't preclude you having it done later.
If you do not want it done, clearly you would prefer that it wasn't done as a baby, and the crucial difference being that having it done as a baby does preclude you from your choice of being uncircumcised.
So saying that it is better done as an infant presumes that you know what the ultimate choice regarding circumcised vs not circumcised is once that baby grows up - which you of course cannot know.
Not sure what you are arguing against here. My point is that it was done during infancy as it was deemed at the time as being better for the child, but if the law was changed, Muslim parents are unlikely to have a problem with waiting until the child is old enough to consent, since it ties in with their beliefs about intention. So what's the hold up?
-
Not a good enough answer - you are sounding like a politician.
What I asked in relation to your statement that 'it is deemed easier for all involved if circumcision happens during infancy' was:
Was it easier for Goodluck Caubergs.
Was it easier for Angelo Ofori-Mintah
Was it easier for Amitai Moshe
Was it easier for Celian Monthe Noumbiwe
Was it easier for Oliver Asante Yeboah
You have failed to answer - I am asking about these specific cases - five dead babies, everyone of whom would have lived had it not been for infant circumcision. And by the way, these are just in the past few years so pretty well confirming that few of one death per 11,000 circumcisions.
I was under the impression it was a rhetorical question since of course it wasn't better for them if they are dead. ::)
-
I was under the impression it was a rhetorical question since of course it wasn't better for them if they are dead. ::)
Thank you - you'd need one heck of a lot of 'benefit' to counter dead children whose death was due to completely unnecessary medical surgery.
-
Not sure what you are arguing against here. My point is that it was done during infancy as it was deemed at the time as being better for the child, but if the law was changed, Muslim parents are unlikely to have a problem with waiting until the child is old enough to consent, since it ties in with their beliefs about intention. So what's the hold up?
Why wait for the law to change. You could simply make a decision to change your practice, thereby supporting the notion that the choice should be that of the individual being circumcised.
The law doesn't prevent you from moving to adult circumcision, so why the hold up if (as you claim) 'parents are unlikely to have a problem with waiting until the child is old enough to consent, since it ties in with their beliefs about intention'. Surely it would be a win/win.
-
Thank you - you'd need one heck of a lot of 'benefit' to counter dead children whose death was due to completely unnecessary medical surgery.
Yes you would - so a test case should determine if the perceived benefits justify the statistical risk of children dying from circumcision.
-
Why wait for the law to change. You could simply make a decision to change your practice, thereby supporting the notion that the choice should be that of the individual being circumcised.
The law doesn't prevent you from moving to adult circumcision, so why the hold up if (as you claim) 'parents are unlikely to have a problem with waiting until the child is old enough to consent, since it ties in with their beliefs about intention'. Surely it would be a win/win.
Ok - I'll just pass the message around to the whole Muslim community by email - should be changed by tomorrow, insha'Allah.
-
Ok - I'll just pass the message around to the whole Muslim community by email - should be changed by tomorrow, insha'Allah.
Ha ha - point is that hiding behind the law is a smoke screen - if you (or the muslim community) thinks waiting until the individual is old enough to consent is a better approach then there is nothing to stop that happening right now. I suspect the reality is that community (although not necessarily you) don't think that at all.
If the muslim community was fine about adult circumcision, why did they fight the proposed change to the law in Germany, which only banned circumcision of children (i.e. without individual consent).
-
Ha ha - point is that hiding behind the law is a smoke screen - if you (or the muslim community) thinks waiting until the individual is old enough to consent is a better approach then there is nothing to stop that happening right now. I suspect the reality is that community (although not necessarily you) don't think that at all.
If the muslim community was fine about adult circumcision, why did they fight the proposed change to the law in Germany, which only banned circumcision of children (i.e. without individual consent).
How many of them fought it? There is no single Muslim community - the views are quite varied and representatives are just politically motivated people representing a handful of narrow interests.
I suspect that many Muslim parents do not have any information to counter their views that the majority of their kids are happy with the current situation. If lots of Muslims suddenly started protesting about their infant circumcision I suspect Muslims parents would have a re-think.
-
Yes you would - so a test case should determine if the perceived benefits justify the statistical risk of children dying from circumcision.
Possibly, but that ignores the politics of it. In fact, it is political through and through. I don't think any European government at the moment would dare challenge Jewish MGM, as the opposition would be fierce and world-wide. Israel and Trump, and probably the Pope, would get involved. No govt wants to get into that, as we saw with Merkel. Muslim MGM is sort of similar but different.
-
Possibly, but that ignores the politics of it. In fact, it is political through and through. I don't think any European government at the moment would dare challenge Jewish MGM, as the opposition would be fierce and world-wide. Israel and Trump, and probably the Pope, would get involved. No govt wants to get into that, as we saw with Merkel. Muslim MGM is sort of similar but different.
Are you saying more people support infant circumcision than are against it in the judiciary or the electorate or in government or positions of authority? Or that there are more people against it but the people against it being a parental decision are not motivated enough to lobby to end it compared to the people who are for it being a parental decision.
-
Ha ha - point is that hiding behind the law is a smoke screen - if you (or the muslim community) thinks waiting until the individual is old enough to consent is a better approach then there is nothing to stop that happening right now. I suspect the reality is that community (although not necessarily you) don't think that at all.
If the muslim community was fine about adult circumcision, why did they fight the proposed change to the law in Germany, which only banned circumcision of children (i.e. without individual consent).
Based on current information available to parents, it is quite possible that Muslim parents think it is in the best interests of their child to undergo infant circumcision. If enough Muslims say they would prefer to make that decision when they are old enough to consent, the practice would change.
-
Are you saying more people support infant circumcision than are against it in the judiciary or the electorate or in government or positions of authority? Or that there are more people against it but the people against it being a parental decision are not motivated enough to lobby to end it compared to the people who are for it being a parental decision.
I'm sorry, I can't see any connection between what I said, and what you said. I was saying that Western governments are extremely loath to ban Jewish MGM, as they do not want to face a massive political upset, involving no doubt, Israel, Trump, the Pope, and others. This is nothing to do with being against MGM itself. Politicians generally want a quiet life, and they don't want to be accused of anti-Semitism, which they would be.
-
How many of them fought it? There is no single Muslim community - the views are quite varied and representatives are just politically motivated people representing a handful of narrow interests.
I suspect that many Muslim parents do not have any information to counter their views that the majority of their kids are happy with the current situation. If lots of Muslims suddenly started protesting about their infant circumcision I suspect Muslims parents would have a re-think.
I agree there isn't a single muslim community - but (as you indicated later) there was no consensus that the change in the law was fine and not an issue.
But the broader point that I challenged you on was you implication that it requires a change to the law to make people change their behaviour. That is only the case if they'd don't want to change their behaviour - if they do they will enact behavioural change regardless of the law.
-
I'm sorry, I can't see any connection between what I said, and what you said. I was saying that Western governments are extremely loath to ban Jewish MGM, as they do not want to face a massive political upset, involving no doubt, Israel, Trump, the Pope, and others. This is nothing to do with being against MGM itself. Politicians generally want a quiet life, and they don't want to be accused of anti-Semitism, which they would be.
I was just making the point that if there is a lack of political will to address the issue, maybe the issue is not significant enough yet.
Regarding the accusation of antisemitism, if lots of Jewish people want to continue a Jewish practice and lots of non-Jewish people want to end it - is that anti-Antisemitism?
-
I agree there isn't a single muslim community - but (as you indicated later) there was no consensus that the change in the law was fine and not an issue.
But the broader point that I challenged you on was you implication that it requires a change to the law to make people change their behaviour. That is only the case if they'd don't want to change their behaviour - if they do they will enact behavioural change regardless of the law.
I don't think they want to change their behaviour if they do not have a reason to. As I said I think they think their current behaviour is in the best interests of their children, until information from their children alerts them otherwise or they themselves have a re-think and form the view that an alternative behaviour is in the best interests of their children.
-
I was just making the point that if there is a lack of political will to address the issue, maybe the issue is not significant enough yet.
Regarding the accusation of antisemitism, if lots of Jewish people want to continue a Jewish practice and lots of non-Jewish people want to end it - is that anti-Antisemitism?
I don't think it is, or really, it would be if the opposers were saying that they want it ended, because it's Jewish. But of course, it would still be termed anti-Semitic by some, as is criticizing Israel.
-
Are you saying more people support infant circumcision than are against it in the judiciary or the electorate or in government or positions of authority? Or that there are more people against it but the people against it being a parental decision are not motivated enough to lobby to end it compared to the people who are for it being a parental decision.
No I doubt that greatly. And actually I don't think this is the point - I suspect (and the tiny proportion of boys circumcised in the UK largely backs this up) that the vast majority of people don't support infant circumcision as they don't get their infants circumcised - the issue is whether people think others should have that choice regardless of their individual view and there I suspect the views are much more balanced.
However neither of these points are what stops the courts or parliament wading in - that is rather that the issue is in the 'too hard' box - opening up that box creates too many headaches (as the experience in Germany shows) - so parliament simply puts it to the bottom of its in tray and the police/courts/CPS chicken out on the basis of prosecutions not being in the public interest.
This is one of many issues that are simply allowed because of inertia/tradition that wouldn't have a hope in hell's chance of being allowing if they weren't currently.
-
I don't think they want to change their behaviour if they do not have a reason to.
That's rather weak willed don't you think, particularly as you seem to imply that there is no religiously-justified reason for infant circumcision and leaving it to later massively increases its ethical validity as the person who's penis is going to be mutilated is actually the person consenting to the mutilation.
Why on earth wouldn't you want to take that moral high ground ... hmm maybe it is because there are too many who put tradition and religious custom above ethics.
-
No I doubt that greatly. And actually I don't think this is the point - I suspect (and the tiny proportion of boys circumcised in the UK largely backs this up) that the vast majority of people don't support infant circumcision as they don't get their infants circumcised - the issue is whether people think others should have that choice regardless of their individual view and there I suspect the views are much more balanced.
However neither of these points are what stops the courts or parliament wading in - that is rather that the issue is in the 'too hard' box - opening up that box creates too many headaches (as the experience in Germany shows) - so parliament simply puts it to the bottom of its in tray and the police/courts/CPS chicken out on the basis of prosecutions not being in the public interest.
This is one of many issues that are simply allowed because of inertia/tradition that wouldn't have a hope in hell's chance of being allowing if they weren't currently.
In which case what is the problem with letting infant circumcision die a natural death, if most people are not doing it and aren't too bothered about people who are unless enough of the children of those people who are practising it are complaining that they need to be protected from it? As you say, we don't need a change in the law for behaviour to change.
-
That's rather weak willed don't you think, particularly as you seem to imply that there is no religiously-justified reason for infant circumcision and leaving it to later massively increases its ethical validity as the person who's penis is going to be mutilated is actually the person consenting to the mutilation.
Why on earth wouldn't you want to take that moral high ground ... hmm maybe it is because there are too many who put tradition and religious custom above ethics.
Maybe you're right. Lots of people generally don't like change or having to think about decisions they have never had to think about before, unless they see a good reason for it. I see it in the work place when I try to introduce a new initiative. But if there are enough complaints change generally follows.
-
As I said I think they think their current behaviour is in the best interests of their children.
But that shows they don't understand best interests - the whole notion of consent and best interests is that the gold standard is that the person themselves decides what it is in their best interests. Any 'proxy' best interests test is always second best and is only applied as a necessity (eg. where a decision cannot be delayed until the individual can consent themselves). There is no necessity for infant circumcision (unless medically required) so the best interests of the infant must be best served by allowing them to make their own choice when old enough.
Taking that decision away from them can never be in their best interests unless there is no choice, which isn't the case here.
-
In which case what is the problem with letting infant circumcision die a natural death.
Firstly because I don't believe it will as it remains firmly embedded in some sections of our society.
But secondly where you see something deeply unethical I think you have a moral duty not to simply wait and see whether it will disappear, but to take action to eradicate it.
So to use an analogy - discrimination in the workplace on gender grounds used to be rife although I suspect a majority (most women and a large block of men) didn't like it. We could have simply played liaise faire and waiting for it to die out. But that would have been moral cowardice - not he right thing to do was to legislate to make a clear signal that it wasn't right and the rate of change of behaviour increased dramatically.
-
But that shows they don't understand best interests - the whole notion of consent and best interests is that the gold standard is that the person themselves decides what it is in their best interests. Any 'proxy' best interests test is always second best and is only applied as a necessity (eg. where a decision cannot be delayed until the individual can consent themselves). There is no necessity for infant circumcision (unless medically required) so the best interests of the infant must be best served by allowing them to make their own choice when old enough.
Taking that decision away from them can never be in their best interests unless there is no choice, which isn't the case here.
I think we already went over the argument put forward that the psychological and social benefits for the child outweigh the harm - you said there would have to be a heck of a lot of benefit, I agreed - so we're back to the notion of a court case to decide this. So does this mean you do support the idea that this needs to be decided by the courts? Which one are you picking - the courts are a smokescreen or the courts are not a smokescreen?
-
I think we already went over the argument put forward that the psychological and social benefits for the child outweigh the harm - you said there would have to be a heck of a lot of benefit, I agreed - so we're back to the notion of a court case to decide this. So does this mean you do support the idea that this needs to be decided by the courts? Which one are you picking - the courts are a smokescreen or the courts are not a smokescreen?
But this is so subjective that a court will never decide on generalities, and also there is the issue of who should change.
If a child is ostracised unless they have had their penis mutilated then who is at fault - I'd strongly argue that it is the society that treats the individual child which is at fault and they should be the ones to change not the child's genitals.
So the same psychological and social benefit can be achieved (if there is a benefit) with no risk whatsoever if the culture changes so that baby boys are welcomed equally regardless of whether their penis is intact or not.
-
I don't think it is, or really, it would be if the opposers were saying that they want it ended, because it's Jewish. But of course, it would still be termed anti-Semitic by some, as is criticizing Israel.
Is that like saying we hate the sin but not the sinner so it's not antisemetic?
It's a Jewish tradition important to Jewish people apparently and an expression of their identity and non-Jewish people want to stop the practice even though it doesn't affect them and they don't engage in it themselves. I can see how this might present ethical problems to politicians.
-
It's a Jewish tradition important to Jewish people apparently and an expression of their identity and non-Jewish people want to stop the practice even though it doesn't affect them
Seeing others have their right to bodily integrity shat on affects me.
-
But this is so subjective that a court will never decide on generalities, and also there is the issue of who should change.
If a child is ostracised unless they have had their penis mutilated then who is at fault - I'd strongly argue that it is the society that treats the individual child which is at fault and they should be the ones to change not the child's genitals.
So the same psychological and social benefit can be achieved (if there is a benefit) with no risk whatsoever if the culture changes so that baby boys are welcomed equally regardless of whether their penis is intact or not.
So that's no to courts deciding then because that would be unworkable? So you prefer the education and persuasion approach?
I can't quite pin down your argument. Should the baby boys when they grow up and have not had a problem with being circumcised as infants as they preferred it to doing it when they are older and are happy to be a part of and continue the tradition, change the tradition - what's the incentive for them to do that?
Also, not sure about people being ostracised for not being cirumcised. I don't think it will be that extreme -they would just feel different and not part of the shared tradition.
-
Seeing others have their right to bodily integrity shat on affects me.
Ok - so if enough people feel the same way as you, should not be a problem to argue the ethics of that and get the law clarified to support your POV.
-
Ok - so if enough people feel the same way as you, should not be a problem to argue the ethics of that and get the law changed.
Unlikely while, as has previously been pointed out, moral cowardice reigns in those with the power to stop it.
-
Unlikely while, as has previously been pointed out, moral cowardice reigns in those with the power to stop it.
Then I guess your only option is to keep lobbying for your POV on morality to effect change.
-
It's a Jewish tradition important to Jewish people apparently and an expression of their identity and non-Jewish people want to stop the practice even though it doesn't affect them and they don't engage in it themselves.
Firstly I disagree that it doesn't affect non Jewish people - indeed I would argue that every single person directly affected by infant circumcision is non Jewish at the time of the operation. Why? Because a new born baby is no more Jewish than they are Christian, Muslim or atheist - they may be the babies of Jewish parents, but they aren't Jewish. They may, or may not choose to become Jewish when they are older, but at 8 days (or similar) they are not Jewish - indeed the cannot be as they simply don't have the cognitive ability to understand, let alone believe in any religious belief or doctrine.
And to suggest that the new born baby of Jewish is de facto Jewish (or Muslim or Christian or atheist, or Conservative, or Republican) as if there is a Jewish gene or a Muslim gene etc runs roughshod over the very fundamental human rights of freedom of religion/belief, in that your religion or belief is a choice, which is the individual's to choose, not to choose or to change.
Secondly the notion that broader society should simply turn a blind eye to what goes on in particular cultural groups because 'it's their culture and it doesn't affect us' is an abrogation of our fundamental duties as a society which include setting basic standards and protecting the most vulnerable in our society, which would necessarily include new born babies. If you take your view then FGM is OK if it is a cultural tradition and it 'doesn't affect the rest of us and we don't engage in it' - likewise other forms of ritualistic child abuse. Why not child sacrifice - provided it 'doesn't affect the rest of us and we don't engage in it'.
No - that's not how our society runs, thankfully. And we are affected by it - as a member of society we are all affected by everything that goes on in the name of that society.
-
Firstly I disagree that it doesn't affect non Jewish people - indeed I would argue that every single person directly affected by infant circumcision is non Jewish at the time of the operation. Why? Because a new born baby is no more Jewish than they are Christian, Muslim or atheist - they may be the babies of Jewish parents, but they aren't Jewish. They may, or may not choose to become Jewish when they are older, but at 8 days (or similar) they are not Jewish - indeed the cannot be as they simply don't have the cognitive ability to understand, let alone believe in any religious belief or doctrine.
And to suggest that the new born baby of Jewish is de facto Jewish (or Muslim or Christian or atheist, or Conservative, or Republican) as if there is a Jewish gene or a Muslim gene etc runs roughshod over the very fundamental human rights of freedom of religion/belief, in that your religion or belief is a choice, which is the individual's to choose, not to choose or to change.
Secondly the notion that broader society should simply turn a blind eye to what goes on in particular cultural groups because 'it's their culture and it doesn't affect us' is an abrogation of our fundamental duties as a society which include setting basic standards and protecting the most vulnerable in our society, which would necessarily include new born babies. If you take your view then FGM is OK if it is a cultural tradition and it 'doesn't affect the rest of us and we don't engage in it' - likewise other forms of ritualistic child abuse. Why not child sacrifice - provided it 'doesn't affect the rest of us and we don't engage in it'.
No - that's not how our society runs, thankfully. And we are affected by it - as a member of society we are all affected by everything that goes on in the name of that society.
Your argument is flawed. The issue with FGM is that the harm outweighs the benefit and the people undergoing FGM want to be protected from it because the level of harm is unacceptable to them and they are unable to protect themsleves. If the same situation existed with infant circumcision then your point about FGM would be valid. The same goes for harm in the other practices you have listed.
So it remains for people who feel harmed by infant circumcision and who are against their parents assuming a religious identity for them on their behalf to ask for legal protection on the basis that the harm outweighs the benefits. If enough people who feel harmed complain, the parents will have a re-think on their approach, and the people complaining will not continue the tradition for their own children. You seemed to say that you supported a persuasion and education approach rather than the courts - have you changed your mind on that now?
-
Your argument is flawed. The issue with FGM is that the harm outweighs the benefit and the people undergoing FGM want to be protected from it because the level of harm is unacceptable to them and they are unable to protect themsleves. If the same situation existed with infant circumcision then your point about FGM would be valid. The same goes for harm in the other practices you have listed.
But that wasn't your argument - your argument was that society shouldn't get itself involved in something that was a religious tradition, was an expression of their identity and (in your view, although totally unjustified) only involves people of that religion.
You made no mention of harm.
Can you at least accept that your final point is simply incorrect. Infant circumcision is not carried out on Jewish children, it is carried out on the children of Jewish parents who at the age of 8 days are no more Jewish than they are Jedi.
-
Mutilation of either girl or boy wrong!
-
But that wasn't your argument - your argument was that society shouldn't get itself involved in something that was a religious tradition, was an expression of their identity and (in your view, although totally unjustified) only involves people of that religion.
You made no mention of harm.
Can you at least accept that your final point is simply incorrect. Infant circumcision is not carried out on Jewish children, it is carried out on the children of Jewish parents who at the age of 8 days are no more Jewish than they are Jedi.
I did not make an argument about whether society should or shouldn't get involved - I said I could understand that politicians might have ethical issues around getting involved.
Sure - makes no difference to me whether children are Jewish, Jedi or nothing.
-
The issue with FGM is that the harm outweighs the benefit and the people undergoing FGM
The the 'benefit' of circumcision or (to turn it on its head) the harm from not getting circumcised is entirely culturally driven - if a culture ostracised a child to the extent that they are harmed less by having their genitals mutilated then it is that culture that needs to change.
Otherwise it is a race to the bottom - all it would take is for a culture to be so abusive to a child for not having FGM for the benefit/harm equation to tip in favour of FGM. That is a fool's argument. If you are not prepared to accept children equally regardless of whether they have intact or mutilated genitals then you have a big problem - and that is one that the 'grown-ups in the room' need to sort, not the 8 day old baby.
-
Sure - makes no difference to me whether children are Jewish, Jedi or nothing.
Missing the point - 8 days old babies are nothing - they cannot be anything else because they cannot believe something they do not have the cognitive development to come close to understand the concept let alone whether they believe it.
An 8 day old baby born to Jewish parents is not Jewish.
-
This seems to pertain to the ownership of children, which seems to lie as an undercurrent in these discussions. A Jewish baby is a baby 'owned' by Jewish parents, who are therefore free to mutilate its genitals.
But English law surely rejects this in favour of the autonomy of children. Granted, parents exercise considerable authority over children, but when it comes to physical autonomy, the law seems clear. Noli tangere, (do not touch).
As somebody has already quoted, 'your children are not your children ...' (Gibran).
-
The the 'benefit' of circumcision or (to turn it on its head) the harm from not getting circumcised is entirely culturally driven - if a culture ostracised a child to the extent that they are harmed less by having their genitals mutilated then it is that culture that needs to change.
Otherwise it is a race to the bottom - all it would take is for a culture to be so abusive to a child for not having FGM for the benefit/harm equation to tip in favour of FGM. That is a fool's argument. If you are not prepared to accept children equally regardless of whether they have intact or mutilated genitals then you have a big problem - and that is one that the 'grown-ups in the room' need to sort, not the 8 day old baby.
Again your argument is flawed - or a fool's argument if you prefer that term. There is no "all it would take" - there is only what actually happens rather than the slippery slope. Actual harm and benefit caused by circumcision is weighed up and a decision is reached as to the best interests of the child based on the actual circumstances. Your wishes about cultural change are only relevant if you can persuade those who practise the culture to adopt your POV. And I asked you before if you can demonstrate that children are being ostracised for not being circumcised and you failed to answer that point. If you can't demonstrate ostracism then your argument about ostracism is not persuasive due to lack of evidence. Which leaves the argument that children gain a benefit by being part of their parents' cultural tradition and continuing that tradition when they themselves become parents until they decide not to continue it and the practice dies out.
-
Missing the point - 8 days old babies are nothing - they cannot be anything else because they cannot believe something they do not have the cognitive development to come close to understand the concept let alone whether they believe it.
An 8 day old baby born to Jewish parents is not Jewish.
Ok if it makes you feel better, 8 days old babies are nothing - they cannot be anything else because they cannot believe something they do not have the cognitive development to come close to understand the concept let alone whether they believe it.
An 8 day old baby born to Jewish parents is not Jewish.
There - feel better now?
-
This seems to pertain to the ownership of children, which seems to lie as an undercurrent in these discussions. A Jewish baby is a baby 'owned' by Jewish parents, who are therefore free to mutilate its genitals.
But English law surely rejects this in favour of the autonomy of children. Granted, parents exercise considerable authority over children, but when it comes to physical autonomy, the law seems clear. Noli tangere, (do not touch).
As somebody has already quoted, 'your children are not your children ...' (Gibran).
I think this pertains to adults not continuing a tradition if they think that tradition harmed them - bit like the caning and slapping children ethical question - where they decided the harm from caning children outweighs the benefit and justifies it being banned by law while the harm from slapping children does not justify it being banned by law so it is currently a parental decision but many parents choose not to slap their children, and at some point in the future it may be banned by law depending on perception of harm, best interests of children, political will etc.
-
I think this pertains to adults not continuing a tradition if they think that tradition harmed them
And here there is interesting psychology.
You might suppose that people who were abused as children would be least likely to become abusive as parents, as they understand the harm. But of course the reverse is true - people who abuse children as adults very often were abused themselves as children so the abusive cycle perpetuates itself over generations. This is partly because the abuse becomes normalised behaviour and also in part due to the 'well it was done to me so I'm going to ruddy well ensure it is done to them' mentality.
So what this means in the current context is that you may well get perpetuation of the abusive cycle of male genital mutilation from generation to generation - that doesn't indicate there isn't harm - quite the reverse, just as the abused child becoming an abusive adult doesn't suggest lack of harm.
-
And here there is interesting psychology.
You might suppose that people who were abused as children would be least likely to become abusive as parents, as they understand the harm. But of course the reverse is true - people who abuse children as adults very often were abused themselves as children so the abusive cycle perpetuates itself over generations. This is partly because the abuse becomes normalised behaviour and also in part due to the 'well it was done to me so I'm going to ruddy well ensure it is done to them' mentality.
So what this means in the current context is that you may well get perpetuation of the abusive cycle of male genital mutilation from generation to generation - that doesn't indicate there isn't harm - quite the reverse, just as the abused child becoming an abusive adult doesn't suggest lack of harm.
Yes interesting - are you suggesting that all the people who do not support banning the smacking of children were abused themselves as children? Do you have any evidence for that? And while you're at it what happened to the evidence that children in the UK who are not circumcised are ostracised that would help make your other argument persuasive?
-
So what this means in the current context is that you may well get perpetuation of the abusive cycle of male genital mutilation from generation to generation - that doesn't indicate there isn't harm - quite the reverse, just as the abused child becoming an abusive adult doesn't suggest lack of harm.
Or the alternative explanation is that people who were smacked as children understand what it feels like o be smacked and think the benefits outweigh the harm so do not support the banning of smacking, and that people who weren't smacked as children but also do not support the banning of smacking do not understand first-hand what it feels like to be smacked but do not perceive the harm as warranting a ban on smacking based on their observations of those who have been smacked.
Similarly people who do not support the legal banning of infant circumcision are observing the views of those who have been circumcised as infants and formed a view that is different from the view you currently hold on infant circumcision, but might change their minds depending on how persuasive your arguments are.
-
Yes interesting - are you suggesting that all the people who do not support banning the smacking of children were abused themselves as children? Do you have any evidence for that?
I thought it was very well understood that people who were abused as children are more likely to go on to abuse as adults, often using the same type of abuse foster on them.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/17/breaking-the-cycle-of-abuse
Note:
'The debate focused on the fact that children who are abused are much more likely to become adults who abuse (between 30% and 40% of people who are abused as children go on to become abusers themselves)'
Note I didn't say and nor does the evidence suggest that all abused children go on to become abusers, but they are more likely than the general population. SO it isn't the case that someone harmed by abuse would be the least likely to perpetuate that abuse as they understand the harm - quite the reverse.
-
Was it easier for Goodluck Caubergs.
Was it easier for Angelo Ofori-Mintah
Was it easier for Amitai Moshe
Was it easier for Celian Monthe Noumbiwe
Was it easier for Oliver Asante Yeboah
To name just five
I had a look at these names. Only one of these circumcisions was carried out at a medical establishment, and the finding was that the GP surgery did not give the right after-care information to the parents.
Amitai Moshe died of SIDS - it was ruled that his death wasn't linked to the circumcision.
For a start it should be possible to require religious groups to use a registered, regulated medical professional trained in circumcision, rather than a Rabbi, and for the surgery to not be done at home and for proper after-care information to be given, though I appreciate that if parents are too uneducated to know how to deal with a medical emergency and do not take the child to A&E straight away, this won't be much help and the safest option is to not have unnecessary surgery, including ear piercing - my daughter's cartilage piercing became infected as she decided to have it done in a shop in Sri Lanka with a friend, rather than waiting and doing it in the UK, where the shop might have been more careful about preventing infections, and I took her to the hotel doctor in Dubai (we were now in Dubai) in case she needed antibiotics and also I was aware of the danger of sepsis though the infection only seemed localised and she did not have a temperature.
That does not mean that individuals won't flout such a law - as they do with the law against FGM - but it helps focus the parents' attention on the risks of circumcision. It is up to the State to publicise and enforce the law by prosecuting parents and people who carryout circumcisions who are not qualified and regulated. Given the more severe and widespread health problems associated with FGM and the more urgent need to protect women who asked for protection, it was important to send a clear message by banning FGM. If there were similar severe and widespread problems associated with circumcision and boys/ men asking for protection it would be consistent to take a similar approach to circumcision.
If there are not severe and widespread problems with circumcision, but it is banned there is the possibility that some people will take their children abroad for the circumcision, so politicians might have also taken this into consideration and decided that education about risks seems a better option for child safety and reducing the practice of infant circumcision rather than a law banning it.
I don't see this as moral cowardice - I think the accusations of moral cowardice are just lazy thinking. It seems more about being practical and realistic about what can actually be achieved. Dismissing the importance and benefits people get from traditions and rituals in their lives is likely to make them more entrenched in their position and put children at risk. Educating them about the risks and changing the law gradually is likely to have more success in influencing people to abandon infant circumcision in favour of circumcision at an older age with the informed consent of the individual. For example, the law passed in Germany stated that the circumcision should not pose a danger to the child's well-being, which allows State intervention if there is evidence that it is posing a danger.
The "danger" wording in the law paves the way to addressing the key issue of the lack of consent by the child to a procedure that carries some risk versus the benefit to the child of being part of their parent's traditions. I think if children perceive that they do not derive a benefit greater than the risk they will not continue the tradition for their own children and it will change or die out. I think it is possible the politicians considered it was overly paternalistic to make that decision for them in relation to circumcision, based on the perceived risks and benefits of circumcision.
-
I thought it was very well understood that people who were abused as children are more likely to go on to abuse as adults, often using the same type of abuse foster on them.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/17/breaking-the-cycle-of-abuse
Note:
'The debate focused on the fact that children who are abused are much more likely to become adults who abuse (between 30% and 40% of people who are abused as children go on to become abusers themselves)'
Note I didn't say and nor does the evidence suggest that all abused children go on to become abusers, but they are more likely than the general population. SO it isn't the case that someone harmed by abuse would be the least likely to perpetuate that abuse as they understand the harm - quite the reverse.
Yes I understand there are claims that people who do not support a smacking ban who were smacked themselves as children could be perpetuating abuse - it's not the only explanation though. It is quite possible that people do not see smacking as abuse but as reasonable chastisement.
My other point was that it is also possible that people who were NOT smacked as children who do not support a ban on smacking just think smacking is also reasonable chastisement that parents should have the choice to use rather than the State micro-managing parenting. These parents cannot be perpetuating a cycle of abuse if they themselves were not abused as children - so another explanation is that they formed a different view from the information available.
I think the same thing applies to circumcision - you can't assume that people who do not support a ban on circumcisions are perpetuating a cycle of abuse. They might have just formed a different opinion based on the information available.
-
For a start it should be possible to require religious groups to use a registered, regulated medical professional trained in circumcision ...
But currently virtually all circumcisions in the UK associated with religious practice are not being performed for medical reasons. And I suspect pretty few are performed by medical professionals for the very reason that they are medically-indicated.
So why should a medical professional be spending their time performing surgery that is not indicated on medical grounds. Indeed surely that would be unethical. You might as well argue that all boy piercings and tattoos should be performed by a medical professional.
Nope medical professional are in the business of delivering medical treatment - ritual circumcision is not medical treatment.
-
Currently it is possible to pay a doctor to perform a ritual circumcision e.g. Thornhill Circumcision Centre
https://circumcisioncentre.co.uk/
They seem to emphasise their focus on after-care.
Until Parliament / the courts decide one way or the other on the best interests/ consent issue for infant circumcisions.
-
Surely this topic has been done to death?
-
Should we cut it off now floo?
(Can't be done to death more than the God searching thread :D)
-
SforG has some of the finest writing this forum has seen on it. Hence the reason it is stickied.
If you want this one mothballed ask the mods. Gabriella and ProfD may or may not agreee.
-
Not up to me, I don't care one way or t'other but floo seemed abit exasperated with it in her last post.
The subject is bound to come up again & again so why not keep it.
-
Unless the law is changed banning ritual circumcision of males, I just can't see what else there is to say on the topic.
-
Unless the law is changed banning ritual circumcision of males, I just can't see what else there is to say on the topic.
The law won't be changed until enough people are persuaded that hacking pieces off a baby's penis is wrong. For that to happen, we need to keep making the argument.
-
Sorry to resurrect this, but:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-40880360
Some people can't leave well alone.
-
Sorry to resurrect this, but:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-40880360
Some people can't leave well alone.
I have no idea if the surgery was necessary, adhesions don't sound good. However, he should have consulted the parents first.
-
I have no idea if the surgery was necessary, adhesions don't sound good. However, he should have consulted the parents first.
I think he has acted unproffesionally and should face bein struck off!
-
The lack of consent and explanation as to why surgery was desirable plus potential risks is troubling.
-
The lack of consent and explanation as to why surgery was desirable plus potential risks is troubling.
At the very least he should face a hefty fine after being sued.