Male Genital Mutilation

[Bubbles]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Shaker]

No I don't accept his "all or nothing" or " either , or " arguments either.

Well there's a surprise.

[Shaker]

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?

[Bubbles]

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.

[jeremyp]

Well this is elective by parents.

The parents don't own the penis.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Bubbles]

Then change the law.

Various places have - more need to do so.

No, we don't need the law changed.

[Gordon]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Bubbles]

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!

[Shaker]

No, we don't need the law changed.

Yes, we do.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Shaker]

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?

[Shaker]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Bubbles]

Which ethnic group are you waving the flag for in particular?

You are not THAT dense.

Pull the other one!

[jeremyp]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Shaker]

If people respected human rights, this would be a non issue, because nobody would hack bits off their babies.

This, this and this again.