Looks like circumcision could be banned.

[melthebell]

surely EVERYTHING you do to a child is unwilling to a certain degree in boosters case???

 

from what foods you feed the child, ours are veggie, purely cos we are and dont buy meat. a woman that worked at our place once slagged me off for it said its cruel forcing them not to eat meat, were not forcing them to, we just dont buy and cook meat.

the same could be said of meat eating tho, its cruel forcing them to eat it

 

its purely down to what your used to, and what family life / culture and other influences are around you at the time

[quisquose]

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.

If we consider circumcision alone, on a like-for-like basis, which is the removal of the prepuce, then there is little difference. The only difference in harm comes from the bias we have been fed from the images we have been presented with. Circumcision on boys, in the west, is usually done in a medical setting on babies, whereas on girls the image is usually of teenagers being held down against their will in a tribal setting. If the practice on girls became established in the west in a medical setting, and was the removal of the clitoral hood alone, then the harms would be exactly the same.

 

Ditto, compare the practice on boys and girls when they are both done in a tribal setting, and there will be little difference in harm as well.

 

Anybody that defends male circumcision in a medical setting must logically approve of female circumcision in a medical setting, done with a clamp that removes the prepuce alone.

 

Yet, in 2010 the AAP’s “bioethics” committee proposed to allow a token ritual cut to girls “much less extensive than neonatal male genital cutting” (their words) but they were howled down within a month.

 

To hold conflicting views on the practice merely whether it is done on boys (legal) and girls (illegal), rather than where and how it is done is cognitive dissonance imho. It's also sexist.

 

It is as human rights violations that they are equivalent. Both are evil. Both must stop.

[melthebell]

what about chav mothers getting little keilies ears pierced at 2 or 3?

[six45ive]

what about chav mothers getting little keilies ears pierced at 2 or 3?

 

What about it? Personally I don't agree with it but the child isn't losing anything and the holes will heal up if left. A more accurate analogy would be; "well what about the removal of a Child's earlobes?" clearly that would be just as wrong.

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

[Riche]

As the son of a Jewish father and COE mother

As you're not a Jew and (I assume) not a Moslem either, there's no religious need to be circumcised.

 

I can be what ever I want to be. If I wish to follow my farthers faith then I shall. I consider myself a Jew so tell me I am not.

[Riche]

If your religion told followers to cut off their left ear would they do it? Blind faith????

[evildrneil]

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.

 

You haven't provided any proof at all that the child is unwilling - you've simply said it is so and brought in a dictionary definition of the word. That dictionary definition requires an element of choice to be willing or unwilling which the child obviously cannot do so what makes you say that the child is unwilling?

[evildrneil]

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

 

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

 

Why is it remotely immoral? And why would it apply in the case of an adult who is quite capable of understanding a situation and so of being willing or unwilling?

[RootsBooster]

surely EVERYTHING you do to a child is unwilling to a certain degree in boosters case???

 

from what foods you feed the child, ours are veggie, purely cos we are and dont buy meat. a woman that worked at our place once slagged me off for it said its cruel forcing them not to eat meat, were not forcing them to, we just dont buy and cook meat.

the same could be said of meat eating tho, its cruel forcing them to eat it

 

its purely down to what your used to, and what family life / culture and other influences are around you at the time

 

No feeding your child vegetables is not comparable to forcing an irreversible removal of a body part upon a child. When your child is older, he/she can decide for themselves to continue eating veg only or to also try eating meats.

 

The freedom of choice is taken away from a circumcised child.

[RootsBooster]

You haven't provided any proof at all that the child is unwilling - you've simply said it is so and brought in a dictionary definition of the word. That dictionary definition requires an element of choice to be willing or unwilling which the child obviously cannot do so what makes you say that the child is unwilling?

 

I've provided an accepted dictionary definition of the word "unwilling", the criteria of which is met by an infant child.

It is YOU now claiming that these criteria require the ability to be aware of the situation and make a conscious decision about it. You have provided no evidence to back up these claims, the ball is in your court.