Male Genital Mutilation

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[floo]

Mutilation of either girl or boy wrong!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[wigginhall]

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 Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.