Male Genital Mutilation

[Bubbles]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Bubbles]

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."
 

[Bubbles]

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?

[Bubbles]

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!

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Harrowby Hall]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Harrowby Hall]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

... 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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Bubbles]

Except no one has said that.

If you read between the lines at some of the objections, yes they have.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

"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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Bubbles]

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)

[Bubbles]

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

[floo]

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.

[Bubbles]

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)

[Shaker]

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.

[Harrowby Hall]

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?