RIC's legality vs. the ethical/social response of others

[davies23]

Hello, I noticed this part of the forum while browsing recently and thought I would contribute 'my two cents' on routine infant circumcision.

I preface my remarks by saying that I did not, and would not choose RIC for my own son.

One of the 'sub-debates', if you like, that discussion of RIC virtually always leads to is that of the legality of the procedure. I do not support the position that 'X practice is legal, so therefore X practice is automatically ethically justifiable, or beyond ethical question'. We can easily identify many practices (particularly at the 'extreme' end of the scale) that are made legal purely in the interests of a certain regime, or in the interests of certain groups favored under a certain regime and have no ethical merit -e.g it being illegal to criticise the policies of certain governments, it being legally-sanctioned to kill government opponents, and so on.

However, I am in general supportive of the idea that a practice's legal status should, in some sense, coincide with the social or inter-personal reception that those undertaking the practice in question are likely to receive out in the 'real world', so to speak. If we disagree with a person undertaking to gamble, for example, but we know it to be legal, then surely if we confront them or question them as to their motivations for doing so, our reactions should rightly occur within the bounds of our knowledge of the legality of their actions. We might hear someone say of a gambler 'I think it's terrible that he/she ruins their livelihood this way', but we would not, I take it, hear the activity deliberately described as 'on a par' with an illegal activity, and then actually meant in this sense, e.g. 'they are gambling away food-money; that money pays for their children's food - therefore they are murdering their children'. The situation may of course different than if we found a person to be doing something that was both ethically dubious (in one's own view) and also illegal.

My point is, in the case of the gambler,the jump from an ethical judgment alone, to an ethical judgment combined with a criminal accusation, is just too big.

If we were to ignore the boundaries that a social awareness entails when we describe or think about certain practices, including circumcision, then it would presumably be acceptable for people to intervene in whatever way they saw fit to end or curtail practices they deemed ethically 'unsound', as though they were criminal activities, even if they were presently legal (I think it's easy enough to fill in the blank with an a contentious practice of your choice). I would argue that although I myself do not agree with RIC, its legal status at present entitles the parent or guardian seeking the procedure to a degree of deference or respect, as befits someone involved in (or this case consenting to) a legal activity being undertaken on their behalf - i.e the circumcision of their son(s), just as someone would receive the notoriety and censure from the community that would presumably accompany illegal actions.

While I do not yet know these forums well enough to comment on the views expressed here, much of the anti-RIC argument I have seen on other forums completely ignores this notion of a respect for the present legal rights of a parent to choose RIC for their son(s), and therefore their right to be understood by others as being on the same 'level' as parents who make other presently legal choices concerning their children. To return to the use of language, which I regard as crucial in determining our legal and ethical responses; the use of terms such as 'mutilation', 'child abuse' and so on in connection with the subject are deliberately coloured so as place RIC in the same category as practices - eg. burning, starvation, neglect etc. that are illegal. Indeed, I believe reasonable parallels can be drawn in terms of language used in the debate over abortion; if one uses terms that refer to homicidal conduct in that context, then surely pro-choice advocates would be within their rights to reply that the legal status of the procedure (at least in jurisdictions where abortion is legal) provides them with the right not to have the procedure compared with, or made synonymous with, a criminal act, in ethical terms.

Of course, we need not apply this logic to abortion alone; there are many situations where the same logical applies, that is, that we have the right to feel as if we are acting legally when we are, and others have the right to ethically censure us when we do not.

Again, I am, myself, anti-RIC. However, I argue strongly in favour of a parent's right not to have their actions in seeking information about circumcision, or in seeking to have their son(s) circumcised, compared to illegal acts that carry what are often very dark connotations, when other actions or activities are (rightly) defended on the basis that they are not illegal and therefore legally enshrined, even if others may disagree with the ethical implications of those particular acts. I argue in favour of a social, as well as literal, respect for the law; there is no point in having recourse to a certain legally-available course of action, if one is made to feel as though they are undertaking to do something with the ethical 'tone' of an illegal action, when they seek to do so.

[Guest]

Are you suggesting because something is legal it shouldn't be challenged?

[Opinionated]

Is it actually "legal". Has it been enshrined in law as a legal practice? Or is it something that has always been done and tolerated? I think there is a difference.

FYI, in regards to this practise, certain terms are banned from being used in this area of the hub. Check out the thread on language.

Full on first post!

[andrewJ]

"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."


its untested, rather than legal

[andrewJ]

its (somewhat) socially acceptible/ maybe legal status DOES factor in to my considerations.
I do excuse people to an extent because of it. Or at least, I can understand it.
you should see me if it were explicitly illegal.

[davies23]

Are you suggesting because something is legal it shouldn't be challenged?

I do not want to suggest that because something is legal, it ought to be beyond challenge. I refer you to my statement here:


I do not support the position that 'X practice is legal, so therefore X practice is automatically ethically justifiable, or beyond ethical question'.

My position is that the kind of challenge we make (including language used and so on) should not make a legal (or at least non-illegal) activity synonymous with an illegal activity, and therefore characterise the parties involved in procuring that act (in this case parents) as being on the same ethical/moral 'level' as those who do act illegally. Again, I refer to the closing portion of my post:


there is no point in having recourse to a certain legally-available course of action, if one is made to feel as though they are undertaking to do something with the ethical 'tone' of an illegal action, when they seek to do so

[davies23]

Is it actually "legal". Has it been enshrined in law as a legal practice? Or is it something that has always been done and tolerated? I think there is a difference.

FYI, in regards to this practise, certain terms are banned from being used in this area of the hub. Check out the thread on language.

Full on first post!

Thank you for your interest in my post, Opinionated. I agree that there is a difference between historical toleration of something as against genuine legality. However, I would argue that until such time (if/when) RICs illegality is enshrined, parents who choose RIC have the right to be ethically regarded in the same way as others making currently-legal choices.

[Opinionated]

Thank you for your interest in my post, Opinionated. I agree that there is a difference between historical toleration of something as against genuine legality. However, I would argue that until such time (if/when) RICs illegality is enshrined, parents who choose RIC have the right to be ethically regarded in the same way as others making currently-legal choices.

There is no other routine removal of a healthy body part for prophylactic or cultural/religious reasons. I do not regard people making currently legal choices as all the same. I think some currently legal choices are morally and ethically questionable. For example, it is perfectly legal to have an animal you do not want anymore euthanased rather than surrender it to a shelter. Legal, but I think it is awful and I could not respect someone making that choice. I feel the same about RIC. I do concede that parents choose it thinking they are doing the best thing for their child, but I do not have any ethical regard for their decision.

Does anyone have a "right" to be ethically regarded a certain way for a decision? I think we all should be accountable for our decisions.

[davies23]

There is no other routine removal of a healthy body part for prophylactic or cultural/religious reasons. I do not regard people making currently legal choices as all the same. I think some currently legal choices are morally and ethically questionable. For example, it is perfectly legal to have an animal you do not want anymore euthanased rather than surrender it to a shelter. Legal, but I think it is awful and I could not respect someone making that choice. I feel the same about RIC. I do concede that parents choose it thinking they are doing the best thing for their child, but I do not have any ethical regard for their decision.

Does anyone have a "right" to be ethically regarded a certain way for a decision? I think we all should be accountable for our decisions.

I respect your view that currently legal practices ought to be open to question at an ethical level, and I agree that we should not be beholden to having ethical regard for the decisions of others, if we do not truly have such a regard.

However, I think we can differentiate between having ethical 'regard' for a practice, where we find it to be ethically laudable, as against the kind of 'regard' we have when we respect the present 'state of play' - particularly with respect to the law - and do not socially encroach upon that 'boundary', if you will. To return to your example of veterinary euthanasia, I assume that although you have no ethical regard for the practice in the sense that you find it ethically/morally terrible, you would nonetheless have regard for its legal status and would not attempt to denigrate owners choosing this option in such a way as to assert that they have in fact behaved criminally.

I would argue that while nobody has the "right" to be regarded in a certain ethical light, they do have the right to be free of ethical judgement equating their actions to those of a criminal nature. A parent choosing to have their baby boy circumcised does not, in my view, have the automatic "right" to have their choice socially received as an ethically benevolent choice. Indeed, I recently questioned a friend of mine at some length as to why she personally intends to have her son circumcised. However, while I do not have any ethical regard for her decision, I nonetheless have regard for the fact that, at least in the current legal climate, she has the right to make a decision in this respect. Of course, it can be argued that the decision should not be open to her to make. But this does not, in my view, give me the right to equate her decision with acts that are not open to her decision; if I were to accuse her of committing an act at the criminal level in seeking this procedure, then the flood-gates are open to speak. If the only 'weight' needed behind something in order to declare it synonymous with an illegal act was my own subjective moral outrage, then potentially anyone disagreeing with my ethical/moral preferences would be 'guilty', so to speak.

I recognise that there is no other body part removed with the same degree of ethical 'neutrality' as the foreskin is for medically prophylactic or religious or cultural reasons. I believe that this has much to do with the way in which the penis is medically perceived. As I understand, the term 'circumcision' is derived ultimately from the Latin conjunction circum-cedere -'to cut around'. On this reading, the glans penis is considered the 'organ proper', since the Latin term merely refers to what is not excised (or at least is not supposed to be) and thus what is cut around - i.e the glans. The foreskin, therefore, only derives its anatomical 'presence' (at least in Latin and languages with a base in Latin) by virtue of its association with its removal. I agree that this is plainly wrong, but the medical/anatomical distinction between 'skin' and 'organ' runs deep, and until such time as the foreskin is understood as part of the penis rather than something removed from the penis, the justification will remain that the foreskin can be considered as in some sense 'apart' from other anatomy.

In religious terms, I think that circumcision will remain 'protected' for the foreseeable future in much of the world, since to intervene in religious practice is readily equated with religious persecution. It may be seen as rather small-minded to intervene in this context when we combine what I was just saying about common medical perceptions; i.e, if a race or group has suffered horrific persecution, it may seem ethically questionable in turn to denounce them over the practice of removing what may be understood as a 'fold of skin' from the penis. I think certain forms of religious persecution are considered so horrific as to place the practices of certain religions beyond ethical question by those seeking to welcome those persecuted.

[Mathermy]

I *respectfully* don't think I could disagree with you more. If there were no 'social challenge' to legality homosexuality would still be illegal, marital rape/violence would be legal. It is when enough people stand up and say "This is unacceptable, we will no longer stand for it" this is how outdated laws are changed to suit the current social climate.

I find that I am personally unable to 'respect the legality' of a practice that I think should be illegal. Hitting your child for example, in any other circumstance would be considered assault, the fact that it is legal is exactly why I challenge it, not why I would 'respect the legality of the practice' as you would have me do.

[davies23]

I *respectfully* don't think I could disagree with you more. If there were no 'social challenge' to legality homosexuality would still be illegal, marital rape/violence would be legal. It is when enough people stand up and say "This is unacceptable, we will no longer stand for it" this is how outdated laws are changed to suit the current social climate.

I find that I am personally unable to 'respect the legality' of a practice that I think should be illegal. Hitting your child for example, in any other circumstance would be considered assault, the fact that it is legal is exactly why I challenge it, not why I would 'respect the legality of the practice' as you would have me do.

I do not argue that campaigning against practices considered morally wrong in order to have this view reflected legally should not occur. Rather, I argue that while a particular practice remains legal, it would be wrong to equate it in a social context with a presently illegal one. As such, I do oppose the notion that a parent carrying out corporal punishment could be openly said to have 'assaulted' their child, if by legal definition they have not. If legal definitions were customisable purely on the basis of how individuals morally perceived another's actions, then we can easily imagine legal enforcement of any kind simply being a matter of comparing a presently legal action (on an ethical level) to one that is not. For example, a person who cannot abide the consumption of alcohol could denounce a moderate drinker as a 'drug abuser'; a person who believes in the necessity of pre-marital virginity could refer to a person's sexual partners outside of marriage as 'sexually abusive'.

In the same sense, I argue that RIC can of course be challenged, but, if we declare it illegal on the basis of ethical sentiment alone, then potentially any morally 'disagreeable' act is open to being socially declared as an illegal act; in such a situation, I think most people would react by asking what gave the accuser the right to bring down a supposedly 'righteous' judgment upon them. The moderate drinker, for example, would presumably reply that the label 'drug abuser' does not apply in their case, since alcohol is not an illicit drug. Similarly, I think RIC ought not be compared when challenged, to an act of 'abuse' or the like, because its present status places it above moral judgment of an illegal act, and I think, as I said, that this 'boundary' has to be respected if the law is not to become a matter of purely subjective ethical positions on practices or actions.

[Mathermy]

I do not argue that campaigning against practices considered morally wrong in order to have this view reflected legally should not occur. Rather, I argue that while a particular practice remains legal, it would be wrong to equate it in a social context with a presently illegal one. As such, I do oppose the notion that a parent carrying out corporal punishment could be openly said to have 'assaulted' their child, if by legal definition they have not. If legal definitions were customisable purely on the basis of how individuals morally perceived another's actions, then we can easily imagine legal enforcement of any kind simply being a matter of comparing a presently legal action (on an ethical level) to one that is not. For example, a person who cannot abide the consumption of alcohol could denounce a moderate drinker as a 'drug abuser'; a person who believes in the necessity of pre-marital virginity could refer to a person's sexual partners outside of marriage as 'sexually abusive'.

In the same sense, I argue that RIC can of course be challenged, but, if we declare it illegal on the basis of ethical sentiment alone, then potentially any morally 'disagreeable' act is open to being socially declared as an illegal act; in such a situation, I think most people would react by asking what gave the accuser the right to bring down a supposedly 'righteous' judgment upon them. The moderate drinker, for example, would presumably reply that the label 'drug abuser' does not apply in their case, since alcohol is not an illicit drug. Similarly, I think RIC ought not be compared when challenged, to an act of 'abuse' or the like, because its present status places it above moral judgment of an illegal act, and I think, as I said, that this 'boundary' has to be respected if the law is not to become a matter of purely subjective ethical positions on practices or actions.

You say you are new to this website, so in terms of here on bubhub I would direct you to the rules where the guidelines regarding appropriate language are fairly explicit. Those terms you mentioned earlier are deemed unacceptable here, not because the practices are legal but because the terms are offensive. Those words are not used (by regular contributors to this forum) and on the odd occasion they are, they are deleted and the person responsible is warned or infracted.

So I'm not exactly sure of the context of your argument. Are you referring to real life interactions? I can only speak for myself, but I have never directly confronted an individual and shared my thoughts about RIC, nor would I unless explicitly asked and even then I would proceed with caution since I am not generally out to cause offence.

Having said that, in an open forum like this one I have and will continue to wade into discussions regarding the ethics and or legality of RIC.

Furthermore I've rarely seen anyone here "declare it illegal" as it's clearly not against the law, however I still disagree that we should not be able to challenge the legality of the procedure in open discourse. I do not think it would be acceptable to say or infer "you have circumcised your child therefore *you* have broken the law and *you* should be punished" but I haven't ever witnessed this kind of dialogue here or anywhere rather.

I do respect your opinion and I appreciate the way you have presented it, it is obvious that there is great thought behind your posts, I still however strongly disagree with you.

If circumcision was morally above other unlawful practices then I would feel no need to compare them, unfortunately I do not believe it's status as legal makes it morally superior to other unlawful acts, and thus the comparison.

As for your last examples I think alchoholics are commonly referred to as alchohol abusers and I am yet to see it challenged, and as for your virginity example I do not see the comparison. Perhaps adultery might be a better example?

[Fellow Traveler]

Davies23 welcome to the board. There are some points where I think I agree with you, if only in principle, but I'll have to look more closely and perhaps get back to you when time permits. Hopefully, you'll stick around you've made some interesting points, some of which I've made myself from time to time.