Religions have succeeded

[ProfessorDavey]

There is no evidence of Mary regretting consent at any stage here.

What on earth has regret got to do with this Vlad.

You do realise that it is perfectly possible to give valid consent to something that you might bitterly regret doing with hindsight. And likewise looking back it is perfectly possible to consider something to be the best thing that ever happened with was foisted on you without consent.

Consent has nothing to do with whether a decision is, in due course, considered the right one or the wrong one. Consent is about who makes that decision and the basis on which they make it.

[ProfessorDavey]

PD - you do know you can't just assert a moral belief about consent without justifying your position right?

This isn't anything to do with moral belief VG - merely giving a view on whether, on the basis of the information available, something meets the criteria for consent or does not. And I'm doing this from the perspective of someone who has been professionally involved in assessing the process of consent for some 25 years.

Here is an interesting little snippet from the Crown Prosecution Service on the matter:

'It is important to make a distinction between consent and mere submission, acquiescence or compliance.'

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-6-consent

So just because someone appears to agree to a course of action does not mean that there is consent - particular in cases where that individual is merely submitted themselves to what an authority figure expects.

[ProfessorDavey]

Also, what is morally wrong with submission to authority? We submit to authority all the time in this country. No one seeks our consent for every act of submission to authority. People are 'coerced' into paying taxes for example on penalty of fines and imprisonment if they don't.

I'm not arguing that we don't submit to authority all the time - but if we do so we are not giving consent to that particular decision.

The discussion is about whether Mary consented - from the text it is pretty clear that she was submitting to authority in a highly imbalanced situation where there was a huge power differential between her and the authority telling her what was going to happen - note telling her, not asking her for her permission.

But on the moral argument - are you really arguing that it is morally acceptable for someone to become pregnant without their consent just because someone else wants them to be pregnant, on the basis of 'submission to authority'. I mean, really VG - do you think that is morally acceptable. I sure as hell don't.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

You have a remarkably romanticised understanding of servitude. Does it not occur to you that servants actually became servants because they had no choice in the matter – indeed were often born into servitude?

You have a remarkably prejudiced and patronising view of servants. Does it not occur to you that many servants don't need your developed-world, idle concern for their well-being from your privileged, ivory tower, while you pat yourself on the back pretending to care while you do absolutely nothing of any value that might inconvenience you to solve their day to day problems of needing food, shelter, employment etc?
 

Servants? Slaves? Street prostitutes? Latrine cleaners? You actually think these people and more had the opportunities to pick more pleasant occupations but chose the shitty ones instead because they believed in the system? Go give your head a wobble will you?

As entertaining as your hysterics are, let's stick with talking about servants instead of digressing.     

She was a minor, and “in that time” had nothing to do with it. The story concerns a morally perfect god remember, so “He” would have paid no mind to contemporary Palestinian morality.

You have absolutely no idea if she was a minor, given the definition of a minor changes from time period to time period and geographical location.

Everything about it, as the Professor has explained to you. The critical part of consent of voluntariness is lost when the person feels obligated to follow the orders of an authority figure. 

You do know both you and PD can't just assert things on here without providing some evidence or justification right? You are both entitled to hold that opinion if you want. Other opinions are available.

But Christians will tell that the “authors” were actually reporters of facts – thus that “god” acted as he did regardless of their moral precepts. That’s the point. 

What, all Christians will tell you that will they? You're just being daft now.
 

Yes you did. That’s what “god knows best” entails.

No I didn't. For a start I don't remember saying "God knows best" but if you want to quote where I said it if you think I said it, that would be helpful.

And no "God knows best" doesn't entail that. "God knows best" as used by Muslims means there is a disagreement between people over what would be the best course of action, so only God would be able to be the arbiter, not the people who are disagreeing.   

I do.

I don't.

You’re still not getting it. The “authors” reported as fact an all-powerful, universe-creating god impregnating an under-age Palestinian servant. There’s no interpretation needed to understanding the story. The question then becomes whether or not “god” behaved morally well (ie, contrary to our current understanding of consent), of if “god" behaved morally badly (ie, consistent with our current understanding of consent).
Which of the two options do you pick?

I'm getting it just fine. What you appear not to be getting is that someone disagreeing with you in a debate about morality is not because they don't get it, but because they think you are wrong. It's worrying considering the forum you are on, that you appear to think everyone agrees on morality. 

The authors narrated a story that God's angel appeared to a believer who had been voluntarily engaged in prayers and acts of worship of an entity she believed to be her creator and who advised her that she would be blessed with a supernatural event whereby she would become pregnant while a virgin by the will of the God she worshipped and she replied that serving the will of her creator was her primary goal so let it happen. The authors were keeping it brief so they did not elaborate on the nuances of the psychology behind those words. If you want to interpret that story based on your prejudices and claim it shows lack of consent without presenting a detailed argument on what is and isn't voluntary consent, that's up to you. What you assert about your current understanding of consent is just that - your current understanding. Your current understanding is subjective and is not by any stretch of the imagination a universal understanding of consent.   

Or, to put it another way, the end justified the means. Non-consensual impregnation of an under-age servant girl was fine because the bigger picture was “creation by a higher power as a morally good thing”. Well, it’s a view – though I have no idea why you think a god couldn’t have "created" without then having to act morally badly down the line.     

You can describe it whichever way you wish - that's up to you how you view the situation. I don't view it as the end justifies the means. 

As you know, I was referring broadly to the contemporary Western position on consent.

You do know you can't just assert on here that you view is the broadly the contemporary Western position on consent right? You're getting very lazy at this debate thing. You actually have to present a detailed argument and evidence on the different contemporary Western philosophical and legal positions on consent,

I was asking you. Do you think our current position on consent is morally better than the god’s impregnating act as described in the biblical texts, or vice versa?

Don't be lazy. First present some evidence and arguments on the different positions on consent currently available. It keeps evolving over time with higher courts over-ruling lower courts and policy and guidance by healthcare organisations changing based on the outcome of court cases.  Then we can look at the different views on the morality of a believer submitting themselves to god's will and whether this even comes into the realm of the court cases or philosophical arguments on consent . And then we'll have something to discuss.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What on earth has regret got to do with this Vlad.

You do realise that it is perfectly possible to give valid consent to something that you might bitterly regret doing with hindsight. And likewise looking back it is perfectly possible to consider something to be the best thing that ever happened with was foisted on you without consent.

What has that got to do with a case where there has been consent. You are the one trying to build a case of coercion and invalidity of the consent from outside the text, you are appealing to the coercion from God and Coercion in Mary, no sign of it ad Mary's lack of regret does not aid your case. As before I am happy to discuss your model of God as the lecturer who gives good grades for er, favours, elsewhere

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

You have a remarkably prejudiced and patronising view of... etc

Even for you this and what follows is a bizarre set of deflections, straw men, non sequiturs and ad homs. If you really want to stick to any of it I suggest you pick whichever point you think is your strongest and I'll deal with it. Your Gish Gallop approach of ever-expanding side bars makes debate in any practical sense impossible though.

Try instead to focus on the central point here: the contemporary Western position on consent requires various component parts to be present (capacity, voluntariness etc). When some or all of these components are not in place consent cannot occur no matter what the acquiescing party may say or do. That last part is important (and is where Vlad keeps going wrong) so you need to grasp it.

Still with me? OK then...

In the Bible texts a story is presented as reportage of actual events in which a morally perfect god impregnates an under-age (the Christian sites I've looked at suggest likely around 13 - 14) Palestinian servant girl. In such a case, the current position on consent is that it cannot have been given no matter what Mary said or did. It just couldn't on the plain "facts" of the case, regardless of what was said before or afterwards. That's why there's no defence at all now for an adult man impregnating, say, a 14-year-old no matter how consenting she may have thought she was.

So we have a story reported as factual about a morally perfect god impregnating someone who could not by dint of the facts of the story have given consent by modern standards. This means either that "god" acted morally perfectly (and the modern standard is therefore wrong), or that the modern standard is right (and "god" is not therefore morally perfect). There is no third option.

I was asking you therefore which of these only two options you would opt for - albeit with little expectation that you won't keep looking for more bolt holes instead rather than answer the question. Go on though - surprise me.   
             

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What has that got to do with a case where there has been consent...

Again, it's not that there was no consent but rather that there cannot have been consent by modern standards. 

Try to understand this. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


If we take that story, editing out verse 38 and including  an unevidenced statement about Mary's minority, at face value therefore (however ludicrous) then it tells us that a universe-creating, all-powerful, all-knowing and morally perfect god impregnated an under-age Palestinian servant girl. Those are the “facts” as reported in the story.
       

There Hillside, I've corrected it for you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There Hillside, I've corrected it for you.

As ever, lying won't help you here. Can you understand why it is that by modern standards, no matter what she said or did, Mary cannot have given consent - ie, why verse 38 has no relevance at all? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As ever, lying won't help you here. Can you understand why it is that by modern standards, no matter what she said or did, Mary cannot have given consent - ie, why verse 38 has no relevance at all?

Sorry Hillside you were caught red handed and in the modern standard of morality, that's unforgiveable.
Just a warning, I may not necessarily be replying to all your posts just to say.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sorry Hillside you were caught red handed and in the modern standard of morality, that's unforgiveable.
Just a warning, I may not necessarily be replying to all your posts just to say.

I don’t know why you keep lying about this. I told you that I just copied and pasted the text from a website, but in any case I’ve dispensed with v38 as irrelevant without rebuttal. Either address your mistake or don’t, but your “look over there, a squirrel” tactic isn’t working. 

PS Here's a link to a website with the text. Different font from the one I cut and pasted from, but it too stops before v38. No idea why, but several of them do it:

https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/christ-conceived-by-the-holy-spirit

PPS Given your long history of near-pathological lying here by the way and your unwavering devotion to the straw man especially do you not think wrongly accusing someone else of dishonesty is pushing your luck more than a tad?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

This isn't anything to do with moral belief VG - merely giving a view on whether, on the basis of the information available, something meets the criteria for consent or does not. And I'm doing this from the perspective of someone who has been professionally involved in assessing the process of consent for some 25 years.

So you keep saying - but it would be more useful to look at whether your arguments are strong enough to stand on their own merits rather than needing your supposed credentials to try to bolster them. The information provided is inconclusive. That you keep asserting that in your opinion it is clear what the conclusion should be isn't convincing. What would be more useful than you asserting what you think is current thinking on consent in medical ethics, is if you linked to the different opinions in philosophy and ethics about voluntary consent in relation to hierarchical organisations that people voluntarily join. For example as I mentioned before a member of the army's consent to expose themselves to biological weapons on the battlefield by staying at their post rather than deserting.

Or you could link to your lecture notes on children consenting to circumcision for religious reasons. This BMJ guidance from 2004 https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/259 says there are many different and opposing views on non-therapeutic male circumcision, even amongst its own members. On the issue of children consenting to their own circumcision it says:

4.2.1. Children’s own consent
All children who are capable of expressing a view should be involved in decisions about whether they should be circumcised, and their wishes taken into account. The BMA cannot envisage a situation in which it is ethically acceptable to circumcise a competent, informed young person who consistently refuses the procedure. As with any form of medical treatment, doctors must balance the harms caused by violating a child’s refusal with the harm caused by not circumcising. Often surgery for non-medical reasons is deferred until children have sufficient maturity and understanding to participate in the decision about what happens to their bodies, and those that are competent to decide are entitled in law to give consent for themselves. When assessing competence to decide, doctors should be aware that parents can exert great influence on their child’s view of treatment. That is not to say that decisions made with advice from parents are necessarily in doubt, but that it is important that the decision is the child’s own independent choice.

It would be useful to know how the BMJ guidance and our modern understanding of consent to religious and lawful ABH has developed.

Mary voluntarily sees herself as a servant of God. Many other religious people also use that phrasing. Millions of people, including children, fast during Ramadan because they see that as a act of submission to God's will. Schools seem to have accepted that the children consent to deny themselves food and any liquid including water from dawn to sunset, which if I remember when my eldest daughter was doing her GCSEs, she was voluntarily fasting for example from about 3.45 am until 9.15pm (sunset) on exam days.

Fascinating what these religious types voluntarily consent to, according to our modern understanding of the word, when it comes to gods and what is considered valid consent by children based on our modern understanding. Unfortunately, still no closer to getting any BMJ guidance on consent to supernatural pregnancies, but interesting nevertheless.

So how relevant is your professional involvement in some capacity to do with consent to medical procedures when it comes to submission in the religious context in reference to a Biblical story about a supernatural pregnancy?  If you want to link to some of your lecture notes to your Masters level students on voluntary consent to supernatural pregnancies, feel free, and we can assess for ourselves what the different perspectives are on consenting to supernatural pregnancies by servants of God.

Here is an interesting little snippet from the Crown Prosecution Service on the matter:

'It is important to make a distinction between consent and mere submission, acquiescence or compliance.'

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-6-consent

So just because someone appears to agree to a course of action does not mean that there is consent - particular in cases where that individual is merely submitted themselves to what an authority figure expects.

I went to your link but unfortunately could not see the line you quoted. Could you please quote a bigger paragraph so I can find it? This consent presumably is in relation to sexual acts, not supernatural events that did not involve sexual acts.

Reading other parts of your link I note it says that whether there was consent or not is a matter for a jury to decide, so do you have links from the CPS on a jury's verdict on consenting to supernatural pregnancies where no sexual act has occurred?

I note your link says in relation to consent that "Agreement is a state of mind and does not need to be verbalised." We do not have in depth information on Mary's state of mind, other than the brief lines in the story. So your opinion that it is clear there is no valid consent  seems to be mere assertion and does not follow the in-depth processes set out in the BMJ or the CPS guidance.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Even for you this and what follows is a bizarre set of deflections, straw men, non sequiturs and ad homs. If you really want to stick to any of it I suggest you pick whichever point you think is your strongest and I'll deal with it. Your Gish Gallop approach of ever-expanding side bars makes debate in any practical sense impossible though.

Yes this is the usual response I have come to expect from you when you have made a series of un-evidenced and unconvincing assertions. So basically you are unable to answer the points made and are running away from them as usual.

Try instead to focus on the central point here: the contemporary Western position on consent requires various component parts to be present (capacity, voluntariness etc). When some or all of these components are not in place consent cannot occur no matter what the acquiescing party may say or do. That last part is important (and is where Vlad keeps going wrong) so you need to grasp it.

Still with me? OK then...

First, try to focus on what you were asked rather than continuing with your un-evidenced assertions. If you want to provide a link to the contemporary western position on consent and show how it has been applied to a supernatural pregnancy or serving gods, then we can talk about the morality of it. That's where you keep going wrong BHS - you seem to think your assertions are convincing - they aren't. Still with me? Ok then...

In the Bible texts a story is presented as reportage of actual events in which a morally perfect god impregnates an under-age (the Christian sites I've looked at suggest likely around 13 - 14) Palestinian servant girl.

Firstly, "suggest" and "likely" are not evidence of Mary being under-age and secondly "under-age" according to whom? It changes depending on time and location. If you're in Sweden or France today it's 15, if you're in Syria or India it's 18, if you're in the UK or Spain it's 16. It varies state by state in the USA. It's 21 in Bahrain. In 5 years time the ages of consent in these countries might change. Age of consent for marriage (sexual intercourse) was set at 12 years old for maidens (girls) and 14 years old for youths (boys), under English common law until 1875 when it was raised to 13 years for girls. In the Netherlands a law, passed in November 1990, permitted sexual intercourse for young people between 12 and 16, but allowed a challenge by parents based on erosion of parental authority or child exploitation, which would be heard by a Council for the Protection of Children. So your idea that there is some kind of straight-forward single view in modern times on consent is nonsense.

In such a case, the current position on consent is that it cannot have been given no matter what Mary said or did. It just couldn't on the plain "facts" of the case, regardless of what was said before or afterwards. That's why there's no defence at all now for an adult man impregnating, say, a 14-year-old no matter how consenting she may have thought she was.

Why is current UK law, which could change at any given moment to a lower/higher age of consent, of any relevance to a Bible story set thousands of years ago, especially since you have no idea how old Mary actually was?

Also, consent in your example relating to UK law is not in relation to supernatural impregnation - it is in relation to a sexual act. There was no sexual act in the story of Mary's pregnancy, hence this is irrelevant.

So we have a story reported as factual about a morally perfect god impregnating someone who could not by dint of the facts of the story have given consent by modern standards. This means either that "god" acted morally perfectly (and the modern standard is therefore wrong), or that the modern standard is right (and "god" is not therefore morally perfect). There is no third option.

Your "either or" scenarios are not valid since there is no modern standard regarding consent to supernatural pregnancies that do not involve sexual acts. 

I was asking you therefore which of these only two options you would opt for - albeit with little expectation that you won't keep looking for more bolt holes instead rather than answer the question. Go on though - surprise me.   

It's fairly obvious that these are not the only 2 options, as already explained many times. That you cannot comprehend this is not a surprise to me. 
         

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm not arguing that we don't submit to authority all the time - but if we do so we are not giving consent to that particular decision.

I think the government will disagree with you on that. The idea of consent of the governed in political philosophy is that a government 's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is justified and lawful only when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised. Here is a response to a query on how we remove our consent to be governed; https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/how_do_we_remove_concent_to_be_g 

"There is only one way to 'remove' or withdraw 'consent to be governed' and that is to cease to be a citizen of the UK.

A declaration of being a 'Stateless Person', or the formal surrender of citizenship would be sufficient."

The discussion is about whether Mary consented - from the text it is pretty clear that she was submitting to authority in a highly imbalanced situation where there was a huge power differential between her and the authority telling her what was going to happen - note telling her, not asking her for her permission.

From the text it is pretty clear that she voluntarily submits to the higher authority. As with any submission to gods, it's pretty easy to withdraw your submission at any time - you just decide to not do whatever you believe your god wants you to do. I don't read the text the same way you do - it's a story about God - they make it sound like it's a done deal with the word WILL for dramatic effect to make it sound like a prophecy (I'm picturing a BOOMING voice courtesy of DEATH in Terry Pratchett), but if Mary had said "nah you're alright, I don't fancy it" then I'm guessing poof - no baby Jesus.

But on the moral argument - are you really arguing that it is morally acceptable for someone to become pregnant without their consent just because someone else wants them to be pregnant, on the basis of 'submission to authority'. I mean, really VG - do you think that is morally acceptable. I sure as hell don't.

I am arguing that Mary consented to the pregnancy. But let's see if the CPS think there is sufficient evidence of a crime being committed and evidence of lack of consent in order to charge God and then get a jury together and see what they think. I believe that is the guidance of the CPS - that whether there was consent or not should be a matter for a jury to decide.

ETA: Sorry made a mistake - the link to the issue of consent of the governed had a response from a contributor about how to remove consent. The consent of the governed is from the US Declaration of Independence and elaborated on in philosophy https://democracyweb.org/consent-of-the-governed-history 

[ProfessorDavey]

Or you could link to your lecture notes on children consenting to circumcision for religious reasons. This BMJ guidance from 2004 https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/259 says there are many different and opposing views on non-therapeutic male circumcision, even amongst its own members. On the issue of children consenting to their own circumcision it says:

4.2.1. Children’s own consent
All children who are capable of expressing a view should be involved in decisions about whether they should be circumcised, and their wishes taken into account. The BMA cannot envisage a situation in which it is ethically acceptable to circumcise a competent, informed young person who consistently refuses the procedure. As with any form of medical treatment, doctors must balance the harms caused by violating a child’s refusal with the harm caused by not circumcising. Often surgery for non-medical reasons is deferred until children have sufficient maturity and understanding to participate in the decision about what happens to their bodies, and those that are competent to decide are entitled in law to give consent for themselves. When assessing competence to decide, doctors should be aware that parents can exert great influence on their child’s view of treatment. That is not to say that decisions made with advice from parents are necessarily in doubt, but that it is important that the decision is the child’s own independent choice.

My own module is based on research ethics, so the issue of circumcision isn't a topic of discussion. However the broader issue of children and consent is covered in detail, and it is complex.

The first point is assessing whether a child has the capacity to consent - being so-called 'Gillick' competent. This doesn't arise miraculously at a particular 'age of consent', although the law may make certain acts illegal below a particular age. No it is based on the individual child's own development and maturity - so one 14 year old may be deemed competent while another might not. It is also situation specific - so a child may be considered to be able to consent to something that is relatively simple and easy to understand but not in another situation which is much more complex in terms of understanding the potential outcomes.

There is a common misconception that for a young child parents are able to consent on behalf of that child if the child does not have capacity themselves. While this is useful for lay understanding, strictly speaking it isn't really the case and this 'proxy consent' does not carry the same weight as actual valid consent. In principle, no-one can 'consent' on behalf of someone else - however people can authorise activities, e.g. treatment, on behalf of someone unable to give consent. And in these cases authorisation must be on the basis of what it is the best interests of the person unable to consent.

In the case of children it is of course the parents who are usually considered to be best able to understand what is in the best interests of their child, and therefore usually it is the parents who authorise treatment etc. However this isn't a guarantee and there have been many cases where parents and medical teams may disagree on course of treatment and in these cases the court becomes the ultimate arbiter of what is in that child's best interest.

The most obvious and settled cases in a religious context are situations where parents refuse life-saving blood transfusions for their child. The case law is pretty settled - if the child cannot consent then a transfusion will be considered to be in the child's best interests. if, on the other hand the child is Gillick competent - then that child can refuse a blood transfusion. But, as your quote implies, the courts will need to be convinced that there is not only capacity to consent, but that the child can freely make that choice without parental pressure sufficient to negate the voluntariness requirement for consent.

[Udayana]

...
From the text it is pretty clear that she voluntarily submits to the higher authority. As with any submission to gods, it's pretty easy to withdraw your submission at any time - you just decide to not do whatever you believe your god wants you to do. I don't read the text the same way you do - it's a story about God - they make it sound like it's a done deal with the word WILL for dramatic effect to make it sound like a prophecy (I'm picturing a BOOMING voice courtesy of DEATH in Terry Pratchett), but if Mary had said "nah you're alright, I don't fancy it" then I'm guessing poof - no baby Jesus.
...

Sort of reminded about the story of the man standing on a street corner propositioning every woman that passed by ... bound to strike lucky eventually.

But .. how could Mary "just decide not do whatever" when the supernatural entity can make her pregnant without any action on her part and without any sex act?

I suspect we would have ended up with all the stories about Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed etc no matter whether they ever existed as individuals or not.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

My own module is based on research ethics, so the issue of circumcision isn't a topic of discussion. However the broader issue of children and consent is covered in detail, and it is complex.

The first point is assessing whether a child has the capacity to consent - being so-called 'Gillick' competent. This doesn't arise miraculously at a particular 'age of consent', although the law may make certain acts illegal below a particular age. No it is based on the individual child's own development and maturity - so one 14 year old may be deemed competent while another might not. It is also situation specific - so a child may be considered to be able to consent to something that is relatively simple and easy to understand but not in another situation which is much more complex in terms of understanding the potential outcomes.

There is a common misconception that for a young child parents are able to consent on behalf of that child if the child does not have capacity themselves. While this is useful for lay understanding, it isn't really the case. No-one can 'consent' on behalf of someone else - however people can authority activities, e.g. treatment, on behalf of someone unable to give consent. And in these cases authorisation must be on the basis of what it is the bast interests of the person unable to consent.

In the case of children it is of course the parents who are usually considered to be best able to understand what is in the best interests of their child, and therefore usually it is the parents who authorise treatment etc. However this isn't a guarantee and there have been many cases where parents and medical teams may disagree on course of treatment and in these cases the court becomes the ultimate arbiter of what is in that child's best interest.

The most obvious and settled cases in a religious context are situations where parents refuse life-saving blood transfusions for their child. The case law is pretty settled - if the child cannot consent then a transfusion will be considered to be in the child's best interests. if, on the other hand the child is Gillick competent - then that child can refuse a blood transfusion. But, as your quote implies, the courts will need to be convinced that there is not only capacity to consent, but that the child can freely make that choice without parental pressure sufficient to negate the voluntariness requirement for consent.

I note the BMA guidance on circumcision also considers identity and social belonging to be a factor.  "Where a child is living in a culture in which circumcision is required for all males, the increased acceptance into a family or society that circumcision can confer is considered to be a strong social or cultural benefit. Exclusion may cause harm by, for example, complicating the individual’s search for identity and sense of belonging. Clearly, assessment of such intangible risks and benefits is complex."

[ProfessorDavey]

I note the BMA guidance on circumcision also considers identity and social belonging to be a factor.  "Where a child is living in a culture in which circumcision is required for all males, the increased acceptance into a family or society that circumcision can confer is considered to be a strong social or cultural benefit. Exclusion may cause harm by, for example, complicating the individual’s search for identity and sense of belonging. Clearly, assessment of such intangible risks and benefits is complex."

Indeed - but that is in the context of considering best interests where someone else (e.g. parents) authorise a procedure on behalf of a child who doesn't have the capacity to consent. And the significance of the procedure will also be critical - so see the difference between circumcision and FGM.

But this isn't really about consent as in this context there is no consent, rather there is authorisation on the basis of best interests.

But if the child does have the capacity to consent, clearly the decision is theirs to make and consent requires the ability to make that decision as a genuine choice free from undue pressure or coercion. Hence the point about ensuring the decision is the child's independent choice.

So while the courts may be comfortable with a decision to circumcise authorised by parents for a child unable to consent (e.g. a baby) they may also consider that consent may not be valid for an older child who has capacity if there is undue parental or societal pressure to make a choice in one direction.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Sort of reminded about the story of the man standing on a street corner propositioning every woman that passed by ... bound to strike lucky eventually.

But .. how could Mary "just decide not do whatever" when the supernatural entity can make her pregnant without any action on her part and without any sex act?

I would say it depends on how the story is presented and interpreted. Stories about gods from ancient Roman and Greek texts portray gods as acting regardless of the wishes of the humans. It's a bit more nuanced in Christian and Islamic texts where some of the teachings and narrative and stories seem to portray a god that we have to seek out and sign up to and choose to submit to through our thoughts, intentions and the choices we make in our daily lives. With lots of human weakness / imperfection / sinning (i.e. not obeying god) and repentance and asking for forgiveness baked into the religious teachings. Therefore, this type of narrative indicates a believer has a choice whether to reject god's commands. It's difficult to know which way to interpret it, hence I mentioned Terry Pratchett's satirical observations in the Discworld novels, which highlighted that language is used for dramatic effect and to convey a sense of majesty in stories but then we also have language in the text and teachings that indicate freedom to choose.   

I suspect we would have ended up with all the stories about Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed etc no matter whether they ever existed as individuals or not.

Yes true - there will also be multiple different interpretations of the stories depending on the way they are told, context, the culture of the society they are broadcast in, the understanding of the individual person based on their nature/ nurture.

[Outrider]

I think cloning engineers would take issue with you but before you say they didn't have that technology then God did.

Cloning, I think you'll find, is artificial... and there was sperm there, it was just longer ago than usual.

And a clone of Mary would have been female...

O.

[Outrider]

It's presented as a supernatural event. In a supernatural event why can't you have conception without insemination?

If you're claiming supernatural then don't co-opt the technical terminology of conception - there wasn't a 'conception' there was just no baby then baby. Trying to normalise claims of 'magic' by understating them as just some unconventional version of an everyday mechanic is disingenuous.

O.

[Outrider]

I have the text Outrider....You don't have evidence, merely speculation based on a 21st century humanistic reinterpretation of a divine situation and that is how it stands i'm afraid

The text - you mean the selectively edited fairy tale poetically translated at least twice from the original which was, at best, third or fourth hand accounts? As to the evidence that I don't have - every single other birth in human history which hasn't involved magic, and many of which have been far more exhaustively reviewed and investigated than this one.

We know a huge amount of how conception, pregnancy and childbirth work.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

The text - you mean the selectively edited fairy tale poetically translated at least twice from the original which was, at best, third or fourth hand accounts? As to the evidence that I don't have - every single other birth in human history which hasn't involved magic, and many of which have been far more exhaustively reviewed and investigated than this one.

We know a huge amount of how conception, pregnancy and childbirth work.

O.

The special pleading on behalf of Vlad, and potentially VG is staggering.

We have astonishing amounts of evidence to support the notion that human conception occurs through fertilisation of a sperm and an egg - we have exactly zero evidence that it can occur via other methods, although hypothetically it may be possible via somatic cell nuclear transfer, but this is a recent technology and has only been demonstrated to generate the earliest stages of development.

Yet apparently for Vlad and VG all that is needed for them to accept some kind of supernatural conception is that someone (we don't actually know who), who wasn't there at the time and likely never met Mary, wrote it in a text from about 100 years after the event.

VG talks of CPS type evidence - if you took that to the CPS they'd laugh so long they'd probably pass out.

There is no evidence for a supernatural conception - all there is is an unevidenced claim.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If you're claiming supernatural then don't co-opt the technical terminology of conception - there wasn't a 'conception' there was just no baby then baby. Trying to normalise claims of 'magic' by understating them as just some unconventional version of an everyday mechanic is disingenuous.

O.

I didn't co-opt it. The people who translated the Bible did. They are the ones stating in the text that: ...behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."... Matthew 1:18

Go take it up with them for using the word "conceived". Though I suspect you won't have much joy, and they will tell you that they will use language as they see fit, and if you don't like it, that is very much your problem to come to terms with as you see fit.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The special pleading on behalf of Vlad, and potentially VG is staggering.

We have astonishing amounts of evidence to support the notion that human conception occurs through fertilisation of a sperm and an egg - we have exactly zero evidence that it can occur via other methods, although hypothetically it may be possible via somatic cell nuclear transfer, but this is a recent technology and has only been demonstrated to generate the earliest stages of development.

Yet apparently for Vlad and VG all that is needed for them to accept some kind of supernatural conception is that someone (we don't actually know who), who wasn't there at the time and likely never met Mary, wrote it in a text from about 100 years after the event.

VG talks of CPS type evidence - if you took that to the CPS they'd laugh so long they'd probably pass out.

There is no evidence for a supernatural conception - all there is is an unevidenced claim.

PD - as has been demonstrated many times on here before, your ability to comprehend English and form an argument can be prone to error. Where have I said that I think what is written in text is evidence of a supernatural conception?

We were actually discussing your errors in arguing that a few words written in a Bible story was evidence for any clear conclusion of anything. I was also pointing out your error in attempting to claim that you could decide what is and isn't consent based on your supposed credentials as some kind of lecturer in the field of research ethics. Sure, you can have an opinion but it's no more valid than anyone else's opinion. You quoted something from the CPS about the issue of consent, and I pointed out that the CPS guidance is that consent should be a matter for a jury to decide. 

That you would not want to admit your error is not surprising - you're not known for admitting when you are wrong.