Looks like circumcision could be banned.

[evildrneil]

You are attempting to equate lack of unwilling with permission.

 

If you had actually read my post I didn't equate lack of unwilling with permission. I said that a baby with no comprehension of what is going on can be neither willing nor unwilling as both require a choice and act of will.

[RootsBooster]

The dictionary definition is not met by a child at all. As for evidence simply look at the etiology of the word - willing from will - an act of will. To act of ones own volition. An act of will takes a choice which an 8 day old baby can not do.

Exactly! Thank you for proving my point! The baby is NOT willing!

 

The dictionary definition is not met by a child at all.

By your reasoning, it does.

I totally agree that it takes awareness of the situation, consideration of it, etc to BE willing. This means that if the baby is incapable of the above, it is by default NOT willing.

There is willing or not willing, no matter how much you wish there was a third option, there isn't. You seem to be confusing "not willing" with "refusing". They are not the same.

[RootsBooster]

If you had actually read my post I didn't equate lack of unwilling with permission. I said that a baby with no comprehension of what is going on can be neither willing nor unwilling as both require a choice and act of will.

 

...yet you've only provided evidence that to be willing requires a choice and act of will.

[esme]

Mod Note

 

Posts containing insults have been removed, keep it civil please.

[Cyclone]

If you had actually read my post I didn't equate lack of unwilling with permission. I said that a baby with no comprehension of what is going on can be neither willing nor unwilling as both require a choice and act of will.

 

Generally in law the lack of ability to consent to something means that the something should not happen. Not that since they can't consent you can do it anyway as they weren't actually unwilling.

[Bloomdido]

In the case of children who are unable to consent, the responsibility lies with the parent or guardian to act on the child's behalf. In extreme cases, the whole process ends up in Court, with the State then intervening to supposedly ensure the best interests of the child. Most sensible people would agree that medication or an operation on a child, to fix an illness would be fine but some people would choose to pray for a child's recovery instead.

 

There are a couple of trials happening in the USA, one concerning a child with diabetes who was denied medical assistance and subsequently died. We know the stance JWs take on blood transfusion and many people have died as a result of those beliefs.

 

So when does a belief system or tradition cross the line of acceptability from 'harmless' (for example a christening), to 'reckless homicide'? What criteria do we use to make such decisions about what is 'acceptable' and what is not and how much should culture be part of that process?

Edited June 25, 2012 by Bloomdido
spell

[Cyclone]

That is the key question really isn't it.

 

Is circumcision for no good medical reason an acceptable thing to do to a child in your care.

[six45ive]

That is the key question really isn't it.

 

Is circumcision for no good medical reason an acceptable thing to do to a child in your care.

 

Clearly not.

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_...reatments.html

[melthebell]

Clearly not.

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_...reatments.html

 

lol at that site

"I realised there might be a need for a voluntary group in Britain as there must be large numbers of circumcised males. Others did indeed hear of what was happening in USA, and the first group of men in Britain to meet to discuss foreskin restoration met in London in November 1994. We decided to continue meeting from time to time, and adopted the name NORM-UK. At first we were mainly interested in foreskin restoration,"

 

some people are obsessed by foreskin v circumcision?

[six45ive]

lol at that site

 

 

some people are obsessed by foreskin v circumcision?

 

Probably because they've come to realise the enormity of what they've had done to them.

The analogy I like to give (this was told to me by an acquaintance who was circumcised in his late teens on medical grounds) is to imagine taking away most of a child's tastebuds. They would still be able to eat but the enjoyment and intensity of the food would be lost on them to some extent. They themselves wouldn't think it was a great deal because that's all they've ever known but everybody else would understand what they're missing knowing they have many fewer tastebuds.