To hope that we can follow Iceland in banning male circumcision

[GladAllOver]

It really is time that this nasty practice is stopped.
www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/18/iceland-ban-male-circumcision-first-european-country

mutt

Do you have a link to that petition? I’ve googled and can only find closed or US ones. I’d be happy to sign and share.

My DS was circumcised when he was 2. He, of course, had no say in the matter and I consented to the operation on the advice of the paediatrician at the time. I was very upset about it, as I felt he had been mutilated and once it was done it couldn't be undone. I have no idea whether or not it's ever caused him any problems or issues (we never discuss it).

I do agree that if it's not medically indicated, circumcision is unnecessary and should not be performed on anyone who is too young to give their informed consent.

www.yourwholebaby.org/men-speak-out/
This again for those that missed it.

Found it, www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-prohibit-in-uk-the-practice-of-metzitza-oral-suction-circumcision-on-8-day-old-babies

Thanks for that link, queen

beepthemeep - of course it's connected to my upbringing - I'm not disputing that. But this doesn't make it wrong. As other posters have said, there are lots of cultures who would consider abortion appalling and circumcision to be run-of-the-mill. What I dislike is how MN turns into an echo chamber....

Larry

You are conspicuously failing to answer any difficult questions posed at you.

I'll ask again, would you support my right to have my baby tattooed if it was important to my culture?

After all it's perfectly safe.

And you've just said that parents can give consent for their children to undergo procedures.

If the answer is no then why not?

"People are never aware of the cultural biases which inform their decisions, but find it very easy to see that of others.

The idea that most parents don’t coerce their children into certain situations because they feel it is beneficial to them is not true. And the idea that the removal of a tiny bit of foreskin is more traumatic than being sent to nursery as a baby or a boarding school as a young child is unproven (at best). Lots of threads here about people traumatised by boarding school. Very few about men traumatised by being circumcised as a baby on any forum, despite the vast number of men who have it done.

Of course you can object to it but I would examine your own cultural biases first."

Absolutely agree Larry.

I have no strong feelings about circumcision (I'm a Christian and we don't practise it) but some of the comments on here are downright offensive.

As a child abuse survivor, I object to calling circumcision child abuse, it really isn't.

FGM is totally different. Girls can bleed to death from the practice, and it's traumatic for the girls who go through it. It's also practised with the purpose of keeping girls 'pure'. And millions of girls worldwide still go through it, so I'd rather focus on prosecuting practitioners in this country, numbers who face prosecution are still shockingly low.

is it the place of the law to decide what o's right for a child over the parents unless there is a strong likelihood of harm

No it isn't. But then cutting your child and removing part of their genitalia is harm, so it's a moot point. I've no doubt religious people don't consider it harm though, because as I pointed upthread religion has the power to make people believe harmful acts are "good things".

They don't tend to be cultures that place a lot of importance on women's rights, do they? And I say that as a catholic, admittedly a not-really practising one, but one who had the lectures from the pro life people every year nonetheless.

Simply accepting something because it's part of your culture isn't necessarily right. People should be questioning that and asking themselves why they continue to propagate it from one generation to the next.

What I dislike is intolerance of any kind. The religious intolerance displayed on this thread is truly shocking in an ostensibly civilised society.

www.sbs.com.au/news/why-is-the-number-of-male-circumcisions-declining-in-australia

Seems like the current incidence of routine neonatal circumcision is Australia is only about 4% of all boys. The doctor equates it to parents being better informed

That link doesn't say it is done in the UK, just that it's not prohibited. It should be (and it is specifically forbidden for most of the community), but it won't make much difference as in my experience it's never done.

And religion is always civilised is it, Bluelady??

“Consent not absolute as can be overridden by medical opinion. Not urgent medical need, merely 'medical opinion'.”

Don’t understand this. In the case of a person unable to consent the desision is delegated to another agreed person. I cannot think of another situation where a third party would be permitted to consent to non medically required body changing surgery.

Patriarchy,

If you lived in a culture where tattooing babies were normal, I would argue for that right, yes.

Parents can give consent to babies undergoing procedures unless the harm is clearly shown to outweigh the benefit, and the harm is beyond a certain level. This is clearly subjective, which is why it is legislated on.

Equally you are refusing to properly engage.

IS the issue trauma to the baby/adult? Is the issue consent? If the latter, why does medical opinion override consent unless it is critical and urgent?

It seems the issue to most is a melange of things mixed up in their heads with a strong underpinning of subconscious cultural superiority

Larry, the fact that you are unable to come up with a remotely analogous situation speaks volumes.

Bluelady

Tolerance is not an open ended contract. It has limits.

Are you tolerant of religious people who want to discriminate against homosexuals? Or those who want to stone adulterers?

If not, then why not? I thought you hated 'intolerance'?

I don’t think disagreeing with a painful, body-altering, non medically necessary operation in a newborn baby equals religious intolerance. Can you please explain bluelady?

Bertrand,

The fact that you are refusing to engage with my points or are pretending that you do not understand them equally speaks volumes.

Larry

If you lived in a culture where tattooing babies were normal then I would argue for that right.

Bloody hell. Just re-read that to yourself.

I rest my case.

I never understand why we outlaw hunting foxes with dogs but allow non medical circumcision.

What I dislike is intolerance of any kind. The religious intolerance displayed on this thread is truly shocking in an ostensibly civilised society.

what I dislike is sheltering bad ideas from criticism simply because they are religious. Throwing around the word intolerance until it has no meaning doesn't help.

If you want to crush a glass at your wedding, fine. if you want pray 5 times a day, fine. if you want to painfully and irreversibly alter someone else's body without their consent, not fine. It's really quite simple.

*Nuffaluff - of course it's not physically comparable. Not remotely. Nobody has said it is.

But in terms of the reason why society does it to young children, and in terms of the issue of consent? Are you really saying it isn't comparable because you don't think it's as severe so therefore the first two points are irrelevant?*