E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
Obviously you didn't quite understand the article.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
No - ad_orientem did, although there are plenty of other sources beside his.
I am so very glad I live in the UK and not across the pond, where many just follow the pack, it would appear.
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.
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.
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.
