Looks like circumcision could be banned.

[Phanerothyme]

Why not? What are these obvious reasons?

Because there is a much greater range and complexity covered by the term female genital mutilation. The thread title refers to circumcision and the OP explicitly refers to it. Introducing FGM to the argument will just square the complexity of the issues under debate.

MGM covers a whole range of procedures from a token cut, through circumcision (removal of prepuce), to subincise, where not just the foreskin, but most of the length of the penis is cut, opening up the urethra.

Yes. In some cultures in PNG, the penis is split by a stone along almost it's whole length after the adolescents have spent months fellating old men with split penises in a hut. But it's all a bit off topic.

 

 

FGM covers a whole range of procedures from a token cut, through circumcision (removal of prepuce), to complete removal of the clitoris.

 

If you justify male circumcision for religious reasons, then it is hypocrisy to condemn female circumcision for religious reasons.

 

I prefer to avoid cognitive dissonance, and simply condemn both.

 

Either you don't know the meaning of cognitive dissonance or you're deliberately using it incorrectly.

 

You've compared FGM and MGM then presented the dichotomy as being about male and female circumcision, a subset of genital mutilation.

 

If male ritual circumcision was largely harmless, and female ritual circumcision was largely harmful, there'd be no contradiction in condemning one more strongly than the other.

[RootsBooster]

To be unwilling you have to be aware of and understand what's going on - are you going to claim that an 8 day old child is aware of and understand what is happening? A child that age can not be willing or unwilling to have a medical procedure just unaware of what is happening to him.

 

Where do you get this from?

 

Unless you can prove otherwise, the victim is unwilling

unwilling

 

Pronunciation: /ʌnˈwɪlɪŋ/

adjective

[often with infinitive]

not ready, eager, or prepared to do something

[RootsBooster]

OK, Just establishing whether the safety or consequences are an issue for you, or whether it's just the consent issue.

To me it's a side issue, people keep bringing it up as a reason (only one of two) FOR religious circumcision but within religion, health is not viewed as a reason for it. It's like saying people should have their earlobes removed because it can reduce the risk of earlobe infections.

 

OK I think I UNDERSTAND and probably WILL IN THE FUTURE even if you DON'T USE capital letters for selected WORDS you want to EMPHASISE.

But I LIKE it!

 

Fair enough. On a scale of 0 - 10, where 0 is a neutral act and 10 represents an act of brutal, terminal violence, where would you rate circumcision?

Depending on the method used, anywhere between 2 and 9

At school I once saw a video showing a "traditional" jewish circumcision method like this "Circumcision consists of three actions: milah — cutting the foreskin with a knife, peri'ah — ripping the membrane with a fingernail, and mezizah — applying the mouth to the baby's bleeding penis and sucking blood from the wound."

 

I think it's a matter of balancing religious freedom against harm to the individual. If circumcision is invariably harmful then there might be a case for banning it, but if it's the case that there are risks than can be minimised or eliminated altogether, and there's no lasting significant harm, then I don't think there can be a case.

For me it's not religious freedom vs harm, it's more religious freedom (of person/people X) vs the freedom/rights/choices of person B. Do you not think this might be a case? Nobody as yet has explained how one man can make a promise which an entire people (including all future generations) must oblige to unwillingly (by proxy), and that be a valid agreement.

 

There's also the psychological issue, it wasn't one of my arguments, but Ian Dome Kept bringing it up and demanding some examples, so I obliged (see here)

Edited June 23, 2012 by RootsBooster
Added a word I missed out

[RootsBooster]

 

oops, erm, maybe could have phrased that better ..

 

Oh pull the other one.

[evildrneil]

Where do you get this from?

 

Unless you can prove otherwise, the victim is unwilling

 

By the dictionary definition you quoted you have to be not ready, eager or prepared all of which require an element of choice which requires an understanding of the situation. No understanding (e.g. an 8 day old child) then no choice and hence no ability to be either willing or unwilling. By the way as you're the one making the claim of unwillingness the onus is on you to provide proof of unwillingness not on someone else to provide proof of why your unsubstantiated claim is untrue.

[Cyclone]

Legally if you are not capable of choosing or of being willing, then by definition you are unwilling.

Of course in the case of children their parents have the right to make decisions, but only within the limits of the law. Unnecessarily removing parts of their body wouldn't normally be included within those limits.

[Cyclone]

I think it's a matter of balancing religious freedom against harm to the individual. If circumcision is invariably harmful then there might be a case for banning it, but if it's the case that there are risks than can be minimised or eliminated altogether, and there's no lasting significant harm, then I don't think there can be a case.

Is it not fairly long lasting and significant that a part of the body is permanently removed? That sounds quite long lasting to me, and it's definitely significant, and I don't see how the removal of a part of the body for no good reason could be considered anything other than harm.

[quisquose]

By the dictionary definition you quoted you have to be not ready, eager or prepared all of which require an element of choice which requires an understanding of the situation. No understanding (e.g. an 8 day old child) then no choice and hence no ability to be either willing or unwilling. By the way as you're the one making the claim of unwillingness the onus is on you to provide proof of unwillingness not on someone else to provide proof of why your unsubstantiated claim is untrue.

Perhaps you could argue for the defence on behalf of Ched Evans?

 

I really do find this line of argument quite immoral tbh.

[six45ive]

I've only just come across this thread and haven't read much of it so apologies if somebody has already linked to this site but it's the best one I've found that discusses the pros and cons of having/not having a foreskin and the alternatives to the removal if it's too tight.

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_alternative_treatments.html

[RootsBooster]

By the dictionary definition you quoted you have to be not ready, eager or prepared all of which require an element of choice which requires an understanding of the situation. No understanding (e.g. an 8 day old child) then no choice and hence no ability to be either willing or unwilling. By the way as you're the one making the claim of unwillingness the onus is on you to provide proof of unwillingness not on someone else to provide proof of why your unsubstantiated claim is untrue.

 

I've already given my proof, to which made your own claims that to NOT be eager, ready or prepared requires choice, you say the situation needs to be understood by the child. It's your turn to provide proof of your claim.

 

I think you're just grasping at straws. As I understand it, NOT being any of the above is simply an absence of them, a status quo until the status changes. There are many things that I'm not eager about but it's not because I'm reluctant, it's just that I've never given a moment's consideration to those millions of things. Until I do, I am not eager. After that point, I can be eager, reluctant or remain not eager.