Court stops circumcision.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Gladiatorsword
First of all, legally, parents do have the right to speak on behalf of their children
Now, this ends when the child reaches 18. Logically, circumcision is a painless procedure below the age of 1, like removing a tiny piece of skin. think how painful it would be at the age of 18, where its removing a considerable 'chunk'
a plus point is probably the prevention of d*** cheese
Posted from TSR Mobile
Now, this ends when the child reaches 18. Logically, circumcision is a painless procedure below the age of 1, like removing a tiny piece of skin. think how painful it would be at the age of 18, where its removing a considerable 'chunk'
a plus point is probably the prevention of d*** cheese
Posted from TSR Mobile
They don't have the right to have part of their body removed for non medical reasons when they are too young to consent to it.
Out bodily integrity is ours and ours alone.
If you want to have a circumcision, have one when you are of age to consent to such a decision.
Original post by Bornblue
Why is there no criminal case? That's a pretty weak argument to justify it. Largely because it's lawful
What is lawful? Mutilation of babies' genitals is lawful?
Original post by Bornblue
They don't have the right to have part of their body removed for non medical reasons when they are too young to consent to it.
Technically speaking, Yes they do.
Out bodily integrity is ours and ours alone.
If you want to have a circumcision, have one when you are of age to consent to such a decision.
If you want to have a circumcision, have one when you are of age to consent to such a decision.
It's the parents decision to decide what they believe is best for their child. As long as the child doesn't suffer significantly or have a compromised value of life that will differ drastically to that of a non circ man, you should really just mind your business.
Original post by admonit
What is lawful? Mutilation of babies' genitals is lawful?
Is it really mutilation though? I mean, is it sliced in random strokes?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Gladiatorsword
I used arguments of my opponents. I'm sure they will be happy to come with detailed answer.
I just want to know why "mutilation of babies' genitals" (as they put it) is lawful in Britain.
Original post by admonit
What is lawful? Mutilation of babies' genitals is lawful?
I'm not commenting on the legality on it but the morality.
Bodily autonomy and integrity should be our fundamental right. We should choose whether or not we want a bit of our body to be permanently removed for non medial reasons, not our parents or anyone else.
If you want a circumcision that should be your choice and your choice alone when you are old enough to fully understand and consent to it.
But for some bizarre reason we allow religious and cultural communities to chop off parts of young children's genitlaia based on either a nonsense custom or a book written thousands of years ago.
If a child needs it removed for medical reasons fair enough. But if it is purely for religious and cultural reasons, it's abhorrent.
Original post by Gladiatorsword
Don't take such a literal interpretation. If I slice your arm off but do it very nicely and neatly it will still be mutilation.
Think about it objectively. You are chopping part of a babies or child's genitals off permanently without their consent for non-medical reasons.
That's mutilation.
Original post by Gladiatorsword
No. There are a lot of exaggerators on this thread
Original post by Bornblue
I'm not commenting on the legality on it but the morality.
Legality in democratic country reflects morality.
Everybody in Britain knows your arguments, including medics, media, MPs, the government etc. Are they all immoral or stupid?
You are chopping part of a babies or child's genitals off permanently without their consent for non-medical reasons.
That's mutilation.
That's mutilation.
This isn't what mutilation means.
Original post by admonit
Legality in democratic country reflects morality.
Everybody in Britain knows your arguments, including medics, media, MPs, the government etc. Are they all immoral or stupid?
Everybody in Britain knows your arguments, including medics, media, MPs, the government etc. Are they all immoral or stupid?
No it doesn't.
Again, before marital rape was outlawed do you think it was morally acceptable?
The reason circumcision is allowed is because of cultural relativism more than anything.
If parliament suddenly outlawed it tomorrow, it would have no bearing on the morality of it.
Whatever the legal position, it's is permanently chopping off part of the genitalia of a young child without their consent and for a non-medical reason.
A persons body is his own to choose what to do with. Unless there is a medical reason for permanently changing a persons body it should never be done without their consent.
Original post by cherryred90s
This isn't what mutilation means.
You're trying to debate on a technicality here.
The notion is that it's wrong to chop off part of a child's genitalia whether it technically counts as mutilation or not.
It violated bodily inter and bodily autonomy. We should all control our own body and decide what we want done to it. To have something permanently changed without consent for a non medical reason really is disgusting. And we only allow it because we're too scared of insulting certain religious groups and their practices.
Original post by queen-bee
Aye,as with any surgical procedure there will always be risks. But are there any benefits to it? I'm due to attend my like 20th circumcision party for my friends little cousin. In some cultures it's a right of passage
You attend a celebration for the willful mutilation of a child? What is wrong with you?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Bornblue
You're trying to debate on a technicality here.
The notion is that it's wrong to chop off part of a child's genitalia whether it technically counts as mutilation or not.
The notion is that it's wrong to chop off part of a child's genitalia whether it technically counts as mutilation or not.
No, I'm correcting you. If you think that male circumcision is wrong then fine, but don't create your own definitions to support your argument.
It violated bodily inter and bodily autonomy. We should all control our own body and decide what we want done to it. To have something permanently changed without consent for a non medical reason really is disgusting. And we only allow it because we're too scared of insulting certain religious groups and their practices.
A newborn baby/young child is incapable of deciding what is best for their body, which is why the decision for most things will fall on the parent.
Original post by cherryred90s
No, I'm correcting you. If you think that male circumcision is wrong then fine, but don't create your own definitions to support your argument.
A newborn baby/young child is incapable of deciding what is best for their body, which is why the decision for most things will fall on the parent.
A newborn baby/young child is incapable of deciding what is best for their body, which is why the decision for most things will fall on the parent.
The fact they are too young is exactly why it shouldn't be done to them. We are also too young to say we don't want a sex change it or to have our arm cut off but that's not exactly an excuse for a parent to do it.
If it is for a medical reason fair enough but if it is not it should be a persons choice whether or not to be circumcised. A baby boy shouldn't have part of his body cut off simply because someone wrote a book thousands of years ago. Nor because it's a 'cultural tradition'.
Men are born with a foreskin as part of their body. Why should they not get a choice like everyone else does about whether they want to keep it? It's their body, no one else's.
If your want to have it done it should be your choice and only done at an age where you have the capacity to consent to it.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
Again, before marital rape was outlawed do you think it was morally acceptable?
The reason circumcision is allowed is because of cultural relativism more than anything.
The reason circumcision is allowed is because of cultural relativism more than anything.
Cultural relativism doesn't cancel law.
Of course there is a delay in synchronization between morality of society and its laws. But generally the laws reflect morality in democratic society.
Marital rape is about having sex without consent, but not about inflicting physical damage. Nobody can be damaged according to the law. Why circumcised babies are exception? If, as you say, male circumcision is mutilation of babies' genitalia, then the parents should be imprisoned.
The answer is very simple: male circumcision is not mutilation and doesn't inflict severe damage.
Whatever the legal position, it's is permanently chopping off part of the genitalia of a young child without their consent
Yeah. I've heard that some babies are born without their consent. It's immoral!
Original post by admonit
Cultural relativism doesn't cancel law.
Yeah. I've heard that some babies are born without their consent. It's immoral!
Yeah. I've heard that some babies are born without their consent. It's immoral!
Your argument is entirely circular. The law doesn't determine morality. It determines the law. I'm arguing it should be illegal,and you're saying 'it should be legal because its legal' - circular argument. The law does not determine objective moral standards.
Something being lawful doesn't mean its not mutilation nor does it mean it's not disgusting or abhorrent - Saudi Arabia execute gay people, that doesn't make being gay immoral.
Male circumcision permanently removes part of a boy's genitalia without his consent for non-medical reasons. It doesn't matter if it causes serious harm, it permanently changes his body.
All boys are born with a foreskin, it should be their choice whether or not to keep it. It's their body.
Should parents be allowed to have a bit of their child's ear chopped off so long as it doesn't cause serious damage? Or maybe have their little toe removed...
A person's bodily integrity is their own and only their own.
Yes if there is a medical necessity, then it is fair enough to have a circumcision done but to do it because of religion or culture and give the child no choice in the matter is disgusting.
Chopping off part of a baby's penis for non-medical reasons really is immoral.
Yet because someone wrote a book thousands of years ago we allow people to do it.
Do you not believe in bodily integrity? Do you not believe that we should decide what to do to our bodies ourselves?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by admonit
No, because male circumcision is not mutilation - it was already proved in this thread. Parents are responsible for their children and they have the right to exercise this responsibility. This also was already explained. Additionally I offered to all fans of "forbid and punish" to open appropriate criminal case. Are you ready doing it?
You're fundamentally mistaken that circumcision is anything related to "raising one's children" or conducted for the benefit of the young. Parents force their children to go to school, shower, clean the rooms and so on. This is nothing to do with raising children.
Circumcision is the ancient covenant between God and Man. The Abrahamic faiths are united in their primitive perception of the almighty as a being in need of sacrifice & surrender to authenticate the faith. A private conviction is insufficient. Muslims still sacrifice a lamb on Eid. This Abrahamic heritage of circumcision is a human sacrifice succedaneum. Human or sexual sacrifice is not unqiue to the God of Abrahamic. In fact, as I described in a post yesterday, that particular part in Genesis was introduced years later to justify the tradition prosecuted by the Egyptians onto their slaves as a means of controlling & owning them. I suspect that this depraved Egyptian practice was wedded to the Jewish one as the Semitic slaves fled Egypt with Moses. This mutilation, I suspect, became an insignia of pride? (In the same way the word 'suffragette' was used opprobriously but was subsequently adopted as an identity marker). Abraham circumcised Ishmael entirely to prove his devotion & dedication to God. As far as Islam is concerned, circumcision is only mentioned in the Hadiths of Islam as something the prophet had.
Being circumcised doesn't bear any relation to one's children. It's an ancient tradition that derives for slavery, servitude and sacrifice. Absolutely none of this has anything to do with caring or raising one's children. It's the same as the contrivance in the 20th century to list the purported health benefits. It was even recommended in the 1950s in America to prevent masturbation.
The foreskin is a birthright; not a defect. This eerie impulse to cut the human body is depraved, and something we need to grow out off.
Original post by admonit
Legality in democratic country reflects morality.
Not necessarily.
In jurisprudence, there is a school of thought called positivsm which argues that there should be a separation between law and morality. I am very sympathetic to this. HLA Hart wrote that just because an action was considered in society to be morally wrong; it should not automatically follow that it warrants legal sanction.
Original post by Bornblue
Your argument is entirely circular. The law doesn't determine morality. It determines the law. I'm arguing it should be illegal,and you're saying 'it should be legal because its legal' - circular argument. The law does not determine objective moral standards.
Something being lawful doesn't mean its not mutilation nor does it mean it's not disgusting or abhorrent - Saudi Arabia execute gay people, that doesn't make being gay immoral.
Male circumcision permanently removes part of a boy's genitalia without his consent for non-medical reasons. It doesn't matter if it causes serious harm, it permanently changes his body.
Something being lawful doesn't mean its not mutilation nor does it mean it's not disgusting or abhorrent - Saudi Arabia execute gay people, that doesn't make being gay immoral.
Male circumcision permanently removes part of a boy's genitalia without his consent for non-medical reasons. It doesn't matter if it causes serious harm, it permanently changes his body.
A few years ago, the High Court had to meander the "rights" of parental faith and the child’s best interests. The case concerned whether a Jehovah’s Witness boy can receive blood transfusion despite the religious objections of his parents. The court made the correct decision and ruled against the parent's religious views.
I am not aware of any legal cases going to court on circumcision so as to raise the legal issue. But the precedent set by that case should be relevant. They're connected in the parents' denying a life-saving treatment because of religious dogma, and parents insisting on a harmful medical procedure because of religious dogma. In both cases, we'd anticipate the courts telling them that, on these issues, the parents don't know what's best for their children
It reminds me of these horrific stories of children being absolutely beaten & terrified by Voodoo witches in the hope of exorcising the demons out of them. Parents who inflict harm entirely because their religion says so ...
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Bleeding a week after circumcision
- Circumcision Fetish
- Penis head sensitive to touch when erect
- Sex and masturbation after adult cirumcision
- Phimosis/frenulum breve - sex with condom possible?
- Circumcision
- Prefer circumcised or not circumcised?
- Circumcision
- Revision circumcision
- Boyfriend needs circumcision
- masturbating dry
- Cannot ejaculate during sex
- I have anxiety about getting circumcision
- Question about Frenuloplasty
- My boyfriend's ****
- girls prefer circumcised or uncircumcised man?
- Frenulectomy
- Advice for tight foreskin sufferers (phimosis)
- Circumcision or not
- I think I have a frenulum breve?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
