Looks like circumcision could be banned.

[RootsBooster]

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

 

Personally I don't think that should be allowed either until the child is old enough to decide for him/herself. The main difference with that though, is that if the child doesn't like their ear piercings when they are older, they can allow them to heal back up. There will still be small marks, but almost unnoticeable in most cases.

 

These questions open to everybody;

 

1. How exactly does a covenant between a god and a people work? (Jeffrey Shaw responded to this but gave no actual explanation)

 

2. If you met someone from an established religion that was new to you and they told you they cut off their babies' earlobes or permanently removed the toenails, nipples or belly button, would that be acceptable under UK/EU law?

Edited June 23, 2012 by RootsBooster
corrected typo and added to last question.

[Forumosaurus]

They quote medical reasons in America. But Americans are stupid, as we all know.

 

Cutting off part of the penis reduce the change of disease is akin to cutting off part of your finger just in case gangrene sets in.

 

It's absolutely mindless.

[quisquose]

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?

 

You are attempting to equate lack of unwilling with permission.

 

I think this to be an immoral argument, the sort of argument that Ched Evans might use.

 

If somebody wants to modify or use somebody else's body then morally it requires willing from that person, lack of unwilling is not adequate.

 

Even in melthebell's ear-piercing example it is likely that the child has provided some sort of willing, and the effect is 99% reversible, but I still don't approve and think it would be better if the same age rules with regards to tattoos applied.

[quisquose]

Wait though, a woman's vulva is also a constantly warm and moist place, full of nooks and crannies - ideal for bacteria to gather and breed one would assume. As a rule we don't suggest women go cutting off their clitoral hood, labia minora or anything else for reasons of hygiene.

 

Only just seen this JenC.

 

Perhaps we should campaign for mandatory labiaplastys. These are all the fashion these days, and as long as we ensure they are all done safely in medical surgeries just imagine all the positive benefits:

 

1. Appearance. Already used as a justification for circumcision in this thread, no more girls worrying about difference.

2. Reduction in STDs. I recognise that no research has been done, because nobody's interested in defending the practice, but all that moist skin is bound to aid the transmission of STDs just as well as a foreskin.

3. Reduction in Vulval Cancer. Okay I know this is almost as rare as Penile Cancer, but come on now, it's obvious that chopping a bit off will prove to be an excellent preventative measure.

4. Religious and cultural tolerance.

 

Keeping a good standard of personal hygiene is all that is required, no need to go cutting off parts of anyone's genitals, male or female.

 

Well there is this I suppose, but it's such a chore.

[Plain Talker]

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

 

van goughianism?

[anywebsite]

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.

 

You've got it backwards...

 

To be ready, eager & prepared you need to understand the situation. If you don't understand the situation at all then you can't be any of those things, you're not ready, eager or prepared, therefore you're unwilling.

 

It's a binary choice, either willing or unwilling.

[anywebsite]

Wait though, a woman's vulva is also a constantly warm and moist place, full of nooks and crannies - ideal for bacteria to gather and breed one would assume. As a rule we don't suggest women go cutting off their clitoral hood, labia minora or anything else for reasons of hygiene.

 

Keeping a good standard of personal hygiene is all that is required, no need to go cutting off parts of anyone's genitals, male or female.

 

They do in some other cultures though.

[anywebsite]

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

 

True believers would, or it wouldn't be much of a religion. Why would I want to start or lead a religion, except to get people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do?

Edited June 23, 2012 by anywebsite

[Chris_Sleeps]

No-one is "forcing" someone to have a surgical procedure without their consent.

So a baby at 8 days old has given its consent?

 

The parents of the child are choosing to have a surgical procedure done that they believe to be in the child's best interest.

It's an hypothetical circumcision, and you've just picked the nicest example. The other end of that is that parents of the child are choosing to chop off a body part based on their own religious belief.

 

An operation which is incidentally very minor and according to up to date medical evidence quite beneficial.

Yet it is also elective surgery, for if the circumcision was an absolute necessity then it would have a different morality. Parental choice is important when it is medically necessary, but to operate on a baby for other reasons I find immoral. How many circumcisions occur under the context of medical need?

 

How is a minor surgical procedure carried out in the proper way in any way cruel or degrading?

Yet again, a lovely way to phrase the question. To answer, minor surgery is not cruel.

Is biting off the skin on the end of the penis an act of cruelty?

 

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

The child isn't old enough to consent to that act being done upon her body. It's equally as wrong as circumcision.

[melthebell]

 

 

The child isn't old enough to consent to that act being done upon her body. It's equally as wrong as circumcision.

 

thats the point, its up to parents to do whatever they can for the best for their child, whatever that entails.

whether its food, clothes, haircut whatever

 

if a child is circumcised does it really make that much difference? do they know theyre any different from others? do you think they go round examining others penises?

does it matter if a foreskin is missing?, really? its not like your heads missing you know

 

im circumsized, it really doesnt inhibit me in any way, although i cant remember what its like to have a foreskin, maybe its good that a young child gets it done then you DONT know / remember what its like with?