ethics, rights, and law

[andrewJ]

i personally, dont really get involved in debates about relative pros and cons of circumcision.

It is obvious that removing body parts can prevent problems. There is nothing unique about the foreskin in this regard.
I will concede (for the sake of argument) even the most exaggerated 'potential benefits' that are proposed by the pro circers.


My problem with circumcision is not that, the benefits are less than is claimed, or that the negatives are worse than is supposed. Debating these points has no bearing on my position.

My problem is that routine circumcision violates basic human rights.

As a result, I believe, as did the 1993 the Queensland Law Reform Commission, that routine circumcision may already be (technically) illegal.

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

It would be interesting to see what would happen in the courts.

[Hollywood]

I believe that too, and it was this belief that was our main reason for leaving DS in tact. I can see things from both sides, pros and cons of each, but we felt strongly that we should leave the choice to DS.

[Pinkzy]

While my husband would prefer our son to be circumcised as a baby, he has and does accept the pros and cons of each side. Just as I do, which is why the decision will be left up to our son to make at an appropriate age. If he wants to be circumcised as a teenager, we'll support this. If he wants to be circumcised as an adult (which I doubt he'd discuss with us but maybe he would lol) then again, we'd absolutely support it. His body, his rights - this is why we won't be having him "cut" as a baby.

While I don't agree with infant circumcision unless it's medically necessary, I do not judge other parents who've had their babies circumcised. I don't really think others should either. They're not bad parents, they're not monsters, regardless of whether they made a decision based on facts, stats, science etc...they made a decision with only the best intentions for their son and they did it with their heart and their head in the best interests of their child. Some people may not agree with that and that's cool, but that doesn't give them the right to put that parent down and I really don't like seeing that happen:no:

[Fuchsia!]

I was looking at female circumcision yesterday and what countries have in place regarding legality.

A lot of it also applies to male circumcision. I personally think its only a matter of time before the courts change this to include RIC. And i only think its a matter of time before someone does take legal action against their parents for taking that choice away from them.

[mumma sienna]

And i only think its a matter of time before someone does take legal action against their parents for taking that choice away from them.


ok, i don't have a son, but have brothers and DF who are all circumcised and they have absolutely no problems with it! i guess my question is, do you really think that someone would actually take their parents to court when all the parents are doing is trying to make the best decisions for their kids? i guess it's like saying maybe someone will take their parents to court for bringing them up in a christian home or didn't let them join a soccer team. i know they are totally different situations, but i guess my point is parents can only do what the feel is right for their kids.

many cultures have adult circumcision (coming into manhood) and friends of ours did this. they said that they wished they had it done as a child! food for thought i guess!

[Fuchsia!]

yeah i really do. There a so many men out there that hate that they had that choice taken away. And whilst some like your brother and even my brother are completely happy that they were done there is also many that aren't and are very resentful and damaged from what their parents done to them.

Maybe not our generation as i think it was the norm to be circumcised and boys that weren't circumcised were the minority. Its changed now and circumcised boys will be the minority and they may resent and hate their parents for it.

If it was me and my parents circumcised me as a baby without my consent i would probably take legal action. But im a female i was lucky that my rights were respected.

[andrewJ]

do you really think that someone would actually take their parents to court when all the parents are doing is trying to make the best decisions for their kids?




well. they already do.
they took their time about it, but many western countries have made female circumcision illegal.
parents who want to circumcise their daughter also only have their childs best interests at heart. But they are wrong, and the law protects girls.

this gender bias is another reason to suspect that ric is actually already illegel

[Prankish]

i personally, dont really get involved in debates about relative pros and cons of circumcision.

It is obvious that removing body parts can prevent problems. There is nothing unique about the foreskin in this regard.
I will concede (for the sake of argument) even the most exaggerated 'potential benefits' that are proposed by the pro circers.


My problem with circumcision is not that, the benefits are less than is claimed, or that the negatives are worse than is supposed. Debating these points has no bearing on my position.

My problem is that routine circumcision violates basic human rights.

As a result, I believe, as did the 1993 the Queensland Law Reform Commission, that routine circumcision may already be (technically) illegal.

Nope 100% legal just banned in public hospitals. Procedures still offered in private hospitals & specialized clinics.

[RedPanda]

Only some private hospitals Prankish. The one I went to won't even tell you where to go or give you a list of doctors.

[mumma sienna]

wow... i guess i never realised that people thought it was SO wrong! i guess because the majority of our friends and DF are african, it is a way of becoming a 'man' (in friends cases) but for DF it was cultural and the norm, like it was here!
i am glad i stumbled across this thread, it is always good to receive new knowledge and perception, food for thought!!

question, do you not think that female circumcison is completely different to male? i always thought that female were done for other reasons then, cleanliness, etc etc etc! am i wrong??

so if it became illegal, would that also mean that grown men could not elect to have it done? not that my son (if i have one) would get much of a say i guess, it is a huge cultural thing for DF and his family!

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

wow... i guess i never realised that people thought it was SO wrong! i guess because the majority of our friends and DF are african, it is a way of becoming a 'man' (in friends cases) but for DF it was cultural and the norm, like it was here!
i am glad i stumbled across this thread, it is always good to receive new knowledge and perception, food for thought!!

question, do you not think that female circumcison is completely different to male? i always thought that female were done for other reasons then, cleanliness, etc etc etc! am i wrong??

so if it became illegal, would that also mean that grown men could not elect to have it done? not that my son (if i have one) would get much of a say i guess, it is a huge cultural thing for DF and his family!

I actually think that men will the Drs who peform the circ, because Drs vow to do no harm and some (me included will argue that it can and often does harm), thus is not endorsed by medical bodies and most Drs anymore.

Of course grown men could elect to have it, as it would just be Routine Infant Circ that would be illegal. Men could still be done and so could real medical circumcisions.

And type 1 FGM is very similer to male circ, and the reasons for doing it are very similer.

[Father]

Andrew. The only thing I read in there is cultural.
Nothing medical, nothing hygienic, no "to look like Mummy".

[andrewJ]

question, do you not think that female circumcison is completely different to male?

if there is a difference, it is only quantitative.

there are plenty of proud circumcised women, including women circumcised as adults (which makes them the ultimate authority if we are to listen to Prankish), who want to be able to offer their daughters the same 'advantages'.

part of the problem in eradicating female circumcision in africa, is the hyppocritical stance many take on it.

[Father]

there are plenty of proud circumcised women, including women circumcised as adults (which makes them the ultimate authority if we are to listen to Prankish), who want to be able to offer their daughters the same 'advantages'.

One suggestion to the anti-circ crowd.

Maybe you should spend more time looking at the benefits for circumcision (male of course), rather than searching endlessly in a vain attempt to find evidence promoting random operations that no one is endorsing or promoting. ie. ear lobes. FGM. Appendix. blah blah.

You all seem to put so much effort in promoting these acts. You should maybe get the forum managers to add another section entitled "Infant ear lobe removal" and "FGM". Then you can discuss the pros and cons of them all you like and try to show people how good they are.

As Opinionated just said on another thread. "This is about infant circumcision" - not ear lobes and FGM.

[andrewJ]

The point is not to compare and contrast female and male circumcision. But to notice that even the very mildest forms of female circumcision are illegal. ( for example - a symbolic pin prick)

according to Tasmnanias commsioner for children;


many jurisdictions outlaw female genital cutting of any kind, not just the most severe form, because it infringes on girls' human rights and bodily integrity. Does the same thing, then, apply to boys as well?

"We have a situation where girls have legal protection from any surgery on their genitals but parents can go around willy-nilly chopping up bits of their boys."

"That is a discrimination any way you look at it," he said.


he also points out that...


a critical issue for any unnecessary circumcision is whether parental consent is sufficient to protect a surgeon from legal action if the child's genital autonomy is thought to have been infringed. (In the United States many men are now suing doctors and hospitals for surgically amputating their prepuce organ without their consent when they were an infant.)

"The only thing that protects a doctor from an action for assault or a civil prosecution is the valid informed consent of the patient," he said.

"The law is getting pretty hazy about whether a parent can give a valid consent for a child's unnecessary genital cutting procedure."

He is talking about the 2009 tasmanian law reform review, which can be found here. http://www.law.utas.edu.au/reform/documents/CircumcisionIssuesPaperA4toPrint.pdf

It has very similar things to say as the 1993 queensland review.



"On a strict interpretation of the assault provisions of the Queensland Criminal Code, routine circumcision of a male infant could be regarded as a criminal act. Further, consent by parents to the procedure being performed may be invalid in light of the common law's restrictions on the ability of parents to consent to the non-therapeutic treatment of children."



http://www.qlrc.qld.gov.au/mpapers/mp06.pdf

[andrewJ]

You all seem to put so much effort in promoting these acts. You should maybe get the forum managers to add another section entitled "Infant ear lobe removal" and "FGM". Then you can discuss the pros and cons of them all you like and try to show people how good they are.


we dont think they are good. we think that your logic dictates that they are good.
You should be all for them. The only reason you are not, is because your views are not consistent.

[Opinionated]

One suggestion to the anti-circ crowd.

Maybe you should spend more time looking at the benefits for circumcision (male of course), rather than searching endlessly in a vain attempt to find evidence promoting random operations that no one is endorsing or promoting. ie. ear lobes. FGM. Appendix. blah blah.

As Opinionated just said on another thread. "This is about infant circumcision" - not ear lobes and FGM.

Actually, I wasn't promoting them. I was likening the removal of the foreskin in infancy to being as unnecessary as removing a child's ear lobes or appendix. You seem to read what I say, but just are not grasping the concepts.

[Father]

I was likening the removal of the foreskin in infancy to being as unnecessary as removing a child's ear lobes or appendix.I know you were. I don't see the likeness.

Just as you don't see the likeness of immunisation to circumcision.

We are different Opinionated. We see things differently. Nothing will change that. You see a human rights issue where I see a medically beneficial procedure.

Meyers-Briggs: You are an intuition and feeling person. I am a sensing and thinking person. (that's my guess anyway based on your comments)



According to the Myers-Briggs typology model, each person uses one of these four functions more dominantly and proficiently than the other three; however, all four functions are used at different times depending on the circumstances.
Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches that seem to come out of nowhere. They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.
Thinking and feeling are the decision-making (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision-making) (judging) functions. The thinking and feeling functions are both used to make rational decisions, based on the data received from their information-gathering functions (sensing or intuition). Those who prefer thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical, causal, consistent and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer feeling tend to come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved.
As noted already, people who prefer thinking do not necessarily, in the everyday sense, "think better" than their feeling counterparts; the opposite preference is considered an equally rational way of coming to decisions (and, in any case, the MBTI assessment is a measure of preference, not ability). Similarly, those who prefer feeling do not necessarily have "better" emotional reactions than their thinking counterparts.
Different people will see things differently, even if provided the exact same information.

[Fuchsia!]

I know you were. I don't see the likeness.

Just as you don't see the likeness of immunisation to circumcision.

We are different Opinionated. We see things differently. Nothing will change that. You see a human rights issue where I see a medically beneficial procedure.

Meyers-Briggs: You are an intuition and feeling person. I am a sensing and thinking person. (that's my guess anyway based on your comments)

Different people will see things differently, even if provided the exact same information.
:laughing::laughing: That would have to be the funniest post i have read in a long time!

Ahhh i think i would rather go with the Common sense thinking....Babies body, his choice.

[Father]

:laughing::laughing: That would have to be the funniest post i have read in a long time!

Ahhh i think i would rather go with the Common sense thinking....Babies body, his choice.

That's quite a mature response. You should enter a debating team.:laughing:

I'm not exactly sure what you were laughing at about that post.

Do you disagree that we are all different and see things differently?

[Phyllis Stein]

OP, I totally agree. I don't give a fig what health benefits can be associated with nonconsensual circumcision, because all of them are only potentialities. *Any* surgery or permanent alteration of a child's body ethically requires an immediate and pressing medical need, not a hypothetical future possibility, the logic of which opens the way to all manner of other arbitrary "preventative" surgeries.

And the idea that research is intrinsically open to interpretation is a furphy. Research is not subjective, it's about discerning, to the best of human ability, the objective truth.

Human rights cannot be dependent on one's subjective interpretation of information - we either have them, or we don't. Surgically altering a child's body in the absence of pressing medical need is a violation of that child's bodily integrity.

[Hootenanny]

I know you were. I don't see the likeness.

Just as you don't see the likeness of immunisation to circumcision.

We are different Opinionated. We see things differently. Nothing will change that. You see a human rights issue where I see a medically beneficial procedure.

Meyers-Briggs: You are an intuition and feeling person. I am a sensing and thinking person. (that's my guess anyway based on your comments)

Different people will see things differently, even if provided the exact same information.

As much as I dislike wiki info this is probably the one and only time I will agree with you (only opinionated can speak for her own 'type' though), and although I think typecasting people is potentially limiting, I too am definately Intuitive and Feeling type and find it interesting when placed in a discussion regarding circumcision. I can see the links between insensitivity/empathy, detached/attached and rules/values. For me personally I know what I would much rather be and yes it affects the way we feel, think and act.

[Opinionated]

I dislike typing people with such a limited range of questions, but to satisfy your curiosity Father, you are right. I am ENFJ.

I know we see things differently, I will just never understand acting first in this case, where the medical benefit is only "potential". I can't think of another medical procedure that is carried out with similar prophylactic reasons.