Male Genital Mutilation

[Bubbles]

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.

[Gordon]

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! 

[BeRational]

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?

[Gordon]

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?

[Shaker]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[BeRational]

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?

[Shaker]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[BeRational]

Now you are just being silly.

Why?

I am just exploring how much harm has to be done till you care.

[Harrowby Hall]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[BeRational]

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?

[Bubbles]

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.

[Shaker]

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 

[Bubbles]

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.

[BeRational]

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?

[Bubbles]

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.

[ad_orientem]

It certainly is mutilation and you could use all the same arguments you're making now to allow fgm.

[Gordon]

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.

[floo]

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.

[Robbie]

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.)

[Shaker]

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.

[Gordon]

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.