Court stops circumcision.

And I will quote: ‘Not many NHS trusts fund circumcision for non-medical reasons, because the risks outweigh the potential health benefits.’

So the same could be said for circumcision.

Yeah but these kids aren't having their foreskins removed so they can be replaced with a prosthetic foreskin of their own volition because they've decided it's a good idea. They're having them removed without their informed consent at an age where it's not possible to have any say over what happens to their bodies.

"Mutilation" does not suggest a parent is evil, although it does describe the physical effect. Obviously parents don't do this for 'evil' reasons to torture their children, but for cultural and religious reasons. Even FGM is done for sound reasons according to the parents who do not think they are being evil but rather are behaving in a way consistent with their culture and beliefs and actually feel it is beneficial for their children to do the same. However what is going on nevertheless remains mutilation.

In my opinion as a society we ought to be able to say: look, this is essentially a serious physical alteration which is being performed on babies and young children without their consent, in a way which can never be reversed and which will have effects lasting the rest of their lives. The fact it has been accepted amongst some cultures and religions for a long time is neither here nor there, appealing to historical precedent is a false concept because we now live in a society where people do have choices.

Given the way society generally feels about autonomy of the individual and their right to decide what happens to their body, it is very surprising that in this day and age we have one rule for circumcision and another for everything else. Fact is if somebody is going to perform a long lasting non-essential surgical procedure, they should do it with the consent of the individual. If that individual is too young to consent then it can wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves how they feel.

OED
damage: Physical harm that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of something
So, severe damage = "severe physical harm that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of something".
Could you provide solid medical proof that male circumcision is "severe physical harm that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of something"?

OED
damage: Physical harm that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of something
So, severe damage = "severe physical harm that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of something".
Could you provide solid medical proof that male circumcision is "severe physical harm that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of something"?

Or forbid all religions or let religious people do what they think is right (without breaking the law of course). You cannot do both things.

What are the benefits to breast flattening? They definitely don't outweigh the risks whereas a procedure like circumcision has small benefits and small risks. That's why I think it should be the parents decision.

No I'm not a Muslim.

Losing your penis is a pretty big risk.

Cannot believe there are people in this day and age that are apologists for the unnecessary mutilation of babies..

I personally don't see why you should get a say in what others feel is in the best interests of their own child unless of course, you are also shouldered with the burden of bringing the child up yourself.

I personally don't see why you should get a say in what others feel is in the best interests of their own child unless of course, you are also shouldered with the burden of bringing the child up yourself.


Furthermore, circumcision is practiced even where religion is not even a major factor.

Great.

Religious tradition, in my book, is no justification for hacking bits off your child. It's a disgraceful practice.

Interestingly enough, it's not mentioned a lot but it's quite the common precedure in the states. Infact, it's the most common surgical procedure performed in the United States. More than a million newborn males are circumcised by doctors every year. And most aren't muslims/jews.

Many people don't actively think

As an advocate for a limited state presence, I will defend the rights of parents to act in the best interests of their child, especially in opposition to those who would dictate otherwise.

I actually read a case of doctors going ahead and circumcising a baby without the parents' consent, because there's such a level of expectation.

edit: I don't know when that would have been. Presumably it wasn't newborn? Maybe some unrelated hospital visit.

Of course you do. Children are the product of parents and as such, are the primary care-givers and guardians of the child, to act in their best interests, until such a time where the being is capable of exercising his or her own mental faculties (i.e: become independent).



Interfering busy bodies, especially in a society where people are actively choosing to not have children, think that they are a surrogate for the interests and welfare of children that are not theirs.

Such people think that they can dictate how others should bring up their children, without necessarily sharing the burdens of bringing up said children.


As an advocate for a limited state presence, I will defend the rights of parents to act in the best interests of their child, especially in opposition to those who would dictate otherwise.

I assume you would be quite happy for the parents who refuse objectively necessary medical treatment for their children to go ahead and do that, and for everyone else to stay out of it.