Baby dies after home circumcision

Originally Posted by danielf

But the thing is, I'm just reading a forum where circumcised man are complaining about lack of sensation during sex. Why is it right for parents to make this decision for their sons? And why then, is it not right (i.e. specifically
forbidden in some countries) to perform a related procedure on females

A brief goooooooogle reveals plenty of anecdotal evidence that the reduced sensation leads to better sex and at least one clinical study that backs that view. If you're attempting to form an argument against parental decisions that reduce their children's quality of life, then circumcision is not the best example to start with. As I said earlier, you would find a lot more to go on were you to concentrate on parents that exercise their right to feed their kids chips and chocolate 7 days a week.

Nevertheless, it is right for parents to make those decisions for their sons because they are the parents. The only alternative that I can see - the State - has ramifications that leave me deeply uncomfortable.

On the subject of female circumcision, it is expressly forbidden in Judaism and in Islam is variously discouraged if not outright condemned depending on which expression of that religion you look to.

I see no logical requirement for the allowance of male circumcision to therefore excuse female circumcision, the chopping off of middle fingers or human sacrifice. To suggest that the one mandates the rest is absurd and somewhat pointless. Rather than asking what must be permitted in the name of religion, it is a lot more useful to look at what religions actually require in the UK and take it from there.

The reality is that we are allowing some of these rituals for no reason other than that we always have, and if someone were to invent it now, we would call it mutilation, because that's what it is: mutilation of a child that has not not consented. Now, i'm not calling for a ban, because a ban would be unworkable and only cause resentment, but I do think it's right people think about what it means for a parent to decide it's alright to remove part of a boy's anatomy.

Again, as an atheist you're having difficulty getting into a religious mindset. Religious practices are not just a list of things you decide to do. They are part of a way of life that helps define your relationship with God. And it is a fact of history that new religious practices that set the believers apart from wider society do result in conflict. Early Christians were thrown to the lions because their practices were at odds with Roman law (refusing to worship the emperor, mostly).

You're almost certainly right, if we lived in a sterile society where only what is scientifically valid and medically necessary may be done, then someone attempting to start a religious practice like circumcision would most likely be prevented from doing so. If circumcision were an absolute requirement of that religion, then the religion would either die out or go underground. Christianity went underground, literally, in 1st century Rome. Today, the version of Roman society that ruled Christian beliefs illegal has gone, and from a certain point of view Christianity has made Rome its capital city.

The reason I mention all this is to reinforce the point I made earlier. You're attempting to set your own very specific, early 21st century secular Western cultural mores against a practice that has survived around the world for millennia. When you say, "I do think it's right people think about what it means for a parent to decide it's alright to remove part of a boy's anatomy," set against all the countless millions of people who have happily circumcised their boys as part of their religion, even under persecution, your demand for them to see things in your own terms, which are so narrow in both time and in culture, is just a bit small-minded.

---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:22 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

Saying it shouldn't be banned or even criticised because it's a religious practice is EXACTLY the same as saying it should be allowed because it's a religious practice. You have been the one complaining when others consider it in principle to be 'barbaric'.

You're setting up a straw man ... if you would be so good as to indicate that you understand what I mean by that, then I'll happily discuss it further with you. Otherwise, please forgive me if I basically can't be bothered to re-state everything you couldn't be bothered to understand the first time round ...

I am finding it hard to really connect to any of the religion arguments being made in it's favour, probably not a surprise as am I an atheist. However, I can't get past the notion that it involves making an irrevocable mutilation to a child who cannot consent and will live like that for the rest of their lives, regardless of any later decision they take regarding their faith.

I don't think it's especially oppressive to say that it's not allowed without the adult consent of the person being operated on.

---------- Post added at 19:43 ---------- Previous post was at 19:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

The reason I mention all this is to reinforce the point I made earlier. You're attempting to set your own very specific, early 21st century secular Western cultural mores against a practice that has survived around the world for millennia. When you say, "I do think it's right people think about what it means for a parent to decide it's alright to remove part of a boy's anatomy," set against all the countless millions of people who have happily circumcised their boys as part of their religion, even under persecution, your demand for them to see things in your own terms, which are so narrow in both time and in culture, is just a bit small-minded.

The fact it's survived around the world for millennia doesn't mean it should survive today. I don't think it's a fallacy to use our own moral norms to make decisions today, that's all we can really do. We shouldn't make decisions that go against them because of the past. Aren't these similar arguments made when some Muslims, some, use their religion and historical precedent to justice the role of women for example?

Originally Posted by Damien

I am finding it hard to really connect to any of the religion arguments being made in it's favour, probably not a surprise as am I an atheist. However, I can't get past the notion that it involves making an irrevocable mutilation to a child who cannot consent and will live like that for the rest of their lives, regardless of any later decision they take regarding their faith.

I don't think it's especially oppressive to say that it's not allowed without the adult consent of the person being operated on.

It's extremely oppressive, because it runs counter to the fundamental principle that when children can't give consent - because they are children - then it is the parents' right and responsibility to give that consent.

Furthermore, you're trying to hide your prejudice behind reasonable-sounding arguments about adult consent. Perjorative words and phrases like 'mutilation' and 'live like that for the rest of their lives' are a gross misrepresentation of what a male circumcision is.

If removal of the foreskin is in any absolute sense a 'mutilation' of the body, then it would be mutilation even if it were carried out for medical reasons. Yet nobody, but nobody, refers to it in those terms. The physical appearance is barely more dramatic than a post-operative scar.

Originally Posted by Damien

I am finding it hard to really connect to any of the religion arguments being made in it's favour, probably not a surprise as am I an atheist. However, I can't get past the notion that it involves making an irrevocable mutilation to a child who cannot consent and will live like that for the rest of their lives, regardless of any later decision they take regarding their faith.

I don't think it's especially oppressive to say that it's not allowed without the adult consent of the person being operated on.

I suppose technically the child and later the adult cannot express any religious freedom because of the 'promise' made for him at 8 days old ,so unless he makes like joey in friends and breaks out the super glue and luncheon meat he's stuck with judaism or Christianity

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

The reason I mention all this is to reinforce the point I made earlier. You're attempting to set your own very specific, early 21st century secular Western cultural mores against a practice that has survived around the world for millennia. When you say, "I do think it's right people think about what it means for a parent to decide it's alright to remove part of a boy's anatomy," set against all the countless millions of people who have happily circumcised their boys as part of their religion, even under persecution, your demand for them to see things in your own terms, which are so narrow in both time and in culture, is just a bit small-minded.

Your argument appears to be that it must be alright because it has survived, which frankly is utter bolleaux.

I'd be interested, seeing you suggested that not all rituals are acceptable, what you would suggest as a set of rules to determine if a ritual involving children is or is not acceptable. I'd be very surprised if this list did not involve some notion of harming a child. What's more: I'd be very surprised if many of the rituals that would be banned would be covered by existing legislation (i.e. banned by the state).

I think the only way in which you could conceivably justify allowing circumcision is on the basis of it being a long-established practice. Frankly, I'd say, that is a very thin reason.

Originally Posted by Damien

The fact it's survived around the world for millennia doesn't mean it should survive today. I don't think it's a fallacy to use our own moral norms to make decisions today, that's all we can really do. We shouldn't make decisions that go against them because of the past. Aren't these similar arguments made when some Muslims, some, use their religion and historical precedent to justice the role of women for example?

Perhaps not, but neither is it right for something that has such a weight of heritage and religious and cultural significance to be banned simply because of the moral predilections of one specific culture at one specific point in time.

There is no medical reason to ban male circumcision; you yourself have formed an argument that is essentially moral in nature (the question of whether parents should decide such things for their children), yet when you talk of what 'should survive' it's difficult to see how you could determine what survives without resorting to legislation. And legislating for or against religious or moral observance is a very, very tricky road to go down.

[danielf]

Out of interest: whether you believe in Evolution or Intelligent Design, presumably there is a reason why men have foreskin, and presumably both chance and the watchmaker would frown upon removing it?

Originally Posted by Chris

It's extremely oppressive, because it runs counter to the fundamental principle that when children can't give consent - because they are children - then it is the parents' right and responsibility to give that consent.

This isn't a medically necessarily procedure. It's not a decision that has to be made so what it the harm in waiting until the child is older? I understand in the Jewish faith at least it needs to be done as a child, in which case I concede it would be the state interring in a religious matter.

Furthermore, you're trying to hide your prejudice behind reasonable-sounding arguments about adult consent. Perjorative words and phrases like 'mutilation' and 'live like that for the rest of their lives' are a gross misrepresentation of what a male circumcision is.

If removal of the foreskin is in any absolute sense a 'mutilation' of the body, then it would be mutilation even if it were carried out for medical reasons. Yet nobody, but nobody, refers to it in those terms. The physical appearance is barely more dramatic than a post-operative scar.

Ok I take back mutilation. It's not prejudice though, I am perfectly happy for people to do what they want to themselves as long as they understand the ramifications and consent to it. I don't think that extends to parents making the choice for their child. None of us think that parents have a right to make all decisions for their child and we all just draw the line at a different place.

Originally Posted by danielf

Your argument appears to be that it must be alright because it has survived, which frankly is utter bolleaux.

I'd be interested, seeing you suggested that not all rituals are acceptable, what you would suggest as a set of rules to determine if a ritual involving children is or is not acceptable. I'd be very surprised if this list did not involve some notion of harming a child. What's more: I'd be very surprised if many of the rituals that would be banned would be covered by existing legislation (i.e. banned by the state).

I think the only way in which you could conceivably justify allowing circumcision is on the basis of it being a long-established practice. Frankly, I'd say, that is a very thin reason.

Again, like Nomadking earlier, in order to strengthen your argument against male circumcision you appear to want to push the argument on to other practices not under discussion, thereby clinching the argument by association with a neat little straw man.

As a matter of fact, I've not even made the argument 'it must be alright because it's survived' - what I've suggested is that it shows a crushing lack of perspective on your part to hope that millions of people down countless centuries would have behaved differently had they only chosen to think about things in your terms.

That said, what I do believe is that, while longevity does not automatically equate to rightness, longevity is most certainly a factor to be taken very seriously into consideration if you want to quite suddenly declare 'wrong' something which a lot of people have always considered 'right'.

---------- Post added at 20:03 ---------- Previous post was at 20:01 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

This isn't a medically necessarily procedure. It's not a decision that has to be made so what it the harm in waiting until the child is older? I understand in the Jewish faith at least it needs to be done as a child, in which case I concede it would be the state interring in a religious matter.

I addressed this point earlier in response to Dan, hope you don't mind if I just copy and paste it again:

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. 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.

Dinner beckons ...

Originally Posted by Chris

Perhaps not, but neither is it right for something that has such a weight of heritage and religious and cultural significance to be banned simply because of the moral predilections of one specific culture at one specific point in time.

I don't want it banned entirely. I just don't want children to have the operation unless it's medically necessary.

There is no medical reason to ban male circumcision; you yourself have formed an argument that is essentially moral in nature (the question of whether parents should decide such things for their children), yet when you talk of what 'should survive' it's difficult to see how you could determine what survives without resorting to legislation. And legislating for or against religious or moral observance is a very, very tricky road to go down.

It may be tricky but the discussion can still take place.

There are some of these conflicts already, we don't allow some of the practises that seem more common place in countries where Sharia law is more prevalent. No one here would argue we should allow the stoning of women for adultery or that a man possesses a woman (Although, I am unsure of how much of that is actually rooted in the Islamic Faith and how much of it is more about a culture.) So we already have a notion that someone's rights don't extend to their right to impose their belief on a another individual.

So we're back to the central question, Does the parent have the right to make this decision for their child? My view is that as it's not medically necessary and is a permanent change to their body then maybe not.

[Zee]

Originally Posted by nomadking

That is NOT the reason for it being done.

yes that is the reason. its what it says in Islam.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

Again, like Nomadking earlier, in order to strengthen your argument against male circumcision you appear to want to push the argument on to other practices not under discussion, thereby clinching the argument by association with a neat little straw man.

As a matter of fact, I've not even made the argument 'it must be alright because it's survived' - what I've suggested is that it shows a crushing lack of perspective on your part to hope that millions of people down countless centuries would have behaved differently had they only chosen to think about things in your terms.

Which, as a matter of fact I've not suggested either, but hey, we were on the subject of straw men anyway. In fact, I've specifically said that I thought a ban would be wrong. I do think that there is a debate to be had over whether the practice of remove part of a male's anatomy without that male's consent when the intervention serves no medical purpose to speak of has any place in today's society.

That said, what I do believe is that, while longevity does not automatically equate to rightness, longevity is most certainly a factor to be taken very seriously into consideration if you want to quite suddenly declare 'wrong' something which a lot of people have always considered 'right'.

I'm still interested in that list of criteria for what is and isn't acceptable. I'm sure it'll include a notion that the right to religious expression ends where the definition of common assault starts.

[Zee]

Originally Posted by Gary L

Why do I have to consider any religious beliefs. or the ins and outs of any religion. for me to have an opinion of circumcising a baby?

because you want it all to be about Islam?

of course I do. its being done in a Muslim or Jewish family, in the case of Islam because of cleanliness so of course it has to be about Islam. Its not like they are forcing other regions to have their foreskin cut off.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Zee

of course I do. its being done in a Muslim or Jewish family, in the case of Islam because of cleanliness so of course it has to be about Islam. Its not like they are forcing other regions to have their foreskin cut off.

no just helpless babies

[Zee]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

[/COLOR]

no just helpless babies

why is this such a wrong thing if it may help in later life?