Baby dies after home circumcision

[Jimmy-J]

Originally Posted by Chris

Describing any act as child abuse purely because it's a religious practice (religious practice, I note, you equate with 'no reason') is the kind of thought process that leads to genocide. Six million Jews were slaughtered on that sort of pretext.

I think you need to calm down and get off your self-righteous high horse.

You can criticise me and my views all you like Chris, it doesn't change the fact that babies are being mutilated in the name of religion.

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

You can criticise me and my views all you like Chris, it doesn't change my opinion that babies are being mutilated in the name of religion.

There, I corrected it for you.

[Zee]

Originally Posted by martyh

so basically a load of hogswash

not at all no. studies show removing the foreskin reduces risk of HIV by up to 60%.

it reduces the risk of UTI and also reduces the risk of getting cancer in the penis. How is that rubbish?

---------- Post added at 18:06 ---------- Previous post was at 18:05 ----------

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

You can criticise me and my views all you like Chris, it doesn't change the fact that babies are being mutilated in the name of religion.

you're going way over the top and trying to use the most harsh words possible don't don't properly reflect reality.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

Let's not generalise the particular, shall we?

Circumcision is a safe, widely practised religious ritual. There is no compelling reason to prevent it.

We are not generalising the particular at all, or at least I'm not. I'm not concerned about the fact that this particular circumcision went wrong, because that was completely preventable.

What I'm talking about is that parents decide that it's right to remove part of the penis of their son (which let's face it is rather difficult to undo) without their son's permission when 1. There is no compelling medical reason to do so (at least at an early age), and 2. In the case of the muslim religion (but if I'm not mistaken not in the case of Judaism) there is not even a religious requirement to do it at an early age.

We're not talking ear piercings or inoculations here. We're talking about a part of a man's anatomy, and I don't think it's rather debatable whether it should be up to the parents to decide for their son whether or not he gets to keep it.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Zee

not at all no. studies show removing the foreskin reduces risk of HIV by up to 60%.

it reduces the risk of UTI and also reduces the risk of getting cancer in the penis. How is that rubbish?

I'm really not sure babies need to worry about any of that TBH. If anyone wants to be circumcised for health reasons they can decide that when they're old enough to make that decision for themselves can't they?

As for HIV, I don't suppose that really enters into the equation for those whose motivation is religious or cultural since HIV has only been known about for a few decades.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Zee

not at all no. studies show removing the foreskin reduces risk of HIV by up to 60%.

it reduces the risk of UTI and also reduces the risk of getting cancer in the penis. How is that rubbish?

I accept that there are some studies showing medical benefits to circumcision (in particular in warmer climates), but presumably, those benefits are hardly diminished if circumcision is carried out at a later age?

Also, (and I might be wrong here),but as I understand it can also lead to loss of sensation during intercourse, which I wouldn't quite class as a benefit? If true, is this a decision parents should be making for their children?

Originally Posted by danielf

We are not generalising the particular at all, or at least I'm not. I'm not concerned about the fact that this particular circumcision went wrong, because that was completely preventable.

What I'm talking about is that parents decide that it's right to remove part of the penis of their son (which let's face it is rather difficult to undo) without their son's permission when 1. There is no compelling medical reason to do so (at least at an early age), and 2. In the case of the muslim religion (but if I'm not mistaken not in the case of Judaism) there is not even a religious requirement to do it at an early age.

We're not talking ear piercings or inoculations here. We're talking about a part of a man's anatomy, and I don't think it's rather debatable whether it should be up to the parents to decide for their son whether or not he gets to keep it.

Your assumptions in the above would appear to be:

1. Only medical reasons can be compelling.

It's perhaps difficult for an atheist, agnostic or general non-adherent to understand, but religious practices and ordinances, to the devotee, are compelling in and of themselves. This is something that is recognised in law in this country and pretty much everywhere else. To object on lack of medical grounds is to miss the point entirely.

2. Parents should not conduct religious rituals on infants that can't 'give permission'.

Infants cannot, by definition, give permission. It is the parents' right and responsibility to decide these things for them. Again, atheists etc frequently argue for parents not to do all sorts of religious things on behalf of their children as if it is somehow possible, or desirable, to bring children up in a religious household and yet insulated from the beliefs and practices that go with it. Every family brings its children up in its own customs and practices. Arguing that non-harmful interventions like circumcision should be exempt is absurd - not least because there are arguably far worse things that children can be exposed to as they grow up by parents exercising their right to give their kids a poor diet or to have nothing to do with their education beyond ensuring they actually turn up at school.

[nomadking]

It still would be done, even if it increased the incidence of infection and disease. How many of those around the world that are practising it, have the faintest idea of any alleged benefits.

Originally Posted by nomadking

It still would be done, even if it increased the incidence of infection and disease. How many of those around the world that are practising it, have the faintest idea of any alleged benefits.

The health benefits are a red herring. It is performed in Judaism because it is a specific religious requirement with specific religious meaning (I can't speak for Muslims or Nigerian Christians - it is most certainly not a requirement in the New Testament).

A religious ritual performed for religious reasons is either legitimate on the grounds that it is a religious observance, or not.

[Gary L]

What if the religion was to cut off the babies middle finger on its right hand?

I suppose because it's done as part of peoples beliefs, then all we can do is just tut at it.

Originally Posted by Gary L

What if the religion was to cut off the babies middle finger on its right hand?

I suppose because it's done as part of peoples beliefs, then all we can do is just tut at it.

Perhaps you could provide an example of a religion that actually does this, then we might have at least half a chance of an intelligent discussion?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

Your assumptions in the above would appear to be:

1. Only medical reasons can be compelling.

It's perhaps difficult for an atheist, agnostic or general non-adherent to understand, but religious practices and ordinances, to the devotee, are compelling in and of themselves. This is something that is recognised in law in this country and pretty much everywhere else. To object on lack of medical grounds is to miss the point entirely.

2. Parents should not conduct religious rituals on infants that can't 'give permission'.

Infants cannot, by definition, give permission. That is the parents' right and responsibility. Again, atheists etc frequently argue for parents not to do all sorts of religious things on behalf of their children as if it is somehow possible, or desirable, to bring children up in a religious household and yet insulated from the beliefs and practices that go with it. Every family brings its children up in its own customs and practices. Arguing that non-harmful interventions like circumcision should be exempt is absurd.

I'm not arguing that non-harmful interventions should be exempt. I'm arguing that it's debatable whether non-reversible outwardly visible interventions should be exempt. The degree to which reasons in favour of something should be compelling should (to my mind) be proportional to the degree to which an intervention is reversible and visible. Giving a child a cross or star of David to wear on a chain is something else than tattooing one on their forehead, and I think it would be wise if parents gave their children a choice on what happens where their body is involved.

Originally Posted by danielf

I'm not arguing that non-harmful interventions should be exempt. I'm arguing that it's debatable whether non-reversible outwardly visible interventions should be exempt. The degree to which reasons in favour of something should be compelling should (to my mind) be proportional to the degree to which an intervention is reversible and visible. Giving a child a cross or star of David to wear on a chain is something else than tattooing one on their forehead, and I think it would be wise if parents gave their children a choice on what happens where their body is involved.

That's an interesting approach to the subject, but it very much reflects your own cultural mores. It would be difficult indeed for you to show that a view from the outside such as this could be allowed to over-ride the rights of parents, exercised for millennia, to choose how to bring up their children.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chris

Perhaps you could provide an example of a religion that actually does this, then we might have at least half a chance of an intelligent discussion?

What about those that have(or had) human sacrifice as part of it. In theory you could create or modify one and those practices should be allowed because they are part of a person's beliefs.

[Zee]

Originally Posted by Gary L

What if the religion was to cut off the babies middle finger on its right hand?

I suppose because it's done as part of peoples beliefs, then all we can do is just tut at it.

What if? its not though... its cutting off the foreskin due to health reasons.