Dutch Doctors Call for Circumcision Ban

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, as a proud non-Abrahamic who still regrets her own son's medically necessary circumcision... right there with ya.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that medically necessary circumcision should be banned. It's a completely separate issue.

 

[Storm]

I don't think anyone's suggesting that medically necessary circumcision should be banned. It's a completely separate issue.

You focused on the wrong clause. Despite the medical necessity, I regret that my son is now circumcised.

I really, really don't like circumcision. I would never do it optionally. I have no right to dictate my preferences to other parents.

 

[Poisonshady313]

When did I say "egregious harm"?

Something that is also done all the time, in every country in the world, is that parents are prohibited by law from inflicting particularly aggregious harm on their children. Why should a non-Jew consider it justified to treat infant circumcision any differently than a parent deciding to lop off one of his child's earlobes?

I wasn't gonna fault you for misspelling it... i figured the polite thing to do would be to carry on as normal, pretending I didn't notice.... but there ya go.

Exactly what "egregious harm" would come from losing an earlobe? AFAICT, a person could live a perfectly full and complete life without one.

You said it, not me.

BTW - should circumcision be available to parents even if the medical community would choose not to perform it?

If you're asking me if I think doctors should be forced to perform circumcisions because the parents want it, the answer is no.

I think a trained and qualified Mohel shouldn't be considered a criminal for performing his duties.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wasn't gonna fault you for misspelling it... i figured the polite thing to do would be to carry on as normal, pretending I didn't notice.... but there ya go.


You said it, not me.

Whoops - my fault for replying without sufficient coffee. :cover:

What I mean is that even in societies that allow parents to harm their children to some degree (with nasty physical discipline, for instance), even they have limits. I think that chopping off pieces of your childrens' skin can be reasonably be considered to be beyond a reasonable limit. I think this is the case even if the child recovers fully.

If you're asking me if I think doctors should be forced to perform circumcisions because the parents want it, the answer is no.

I think a trained and qualified Mohel shouldn't be considered a criminal for performing his duties.

Why not?

I'm being completely serious here.

Are there any other areas where you think that an unlicenced, unaccredited person should be permitted to perform medical procedures?

We live in a society where putting fish in your foot bath can have legal penalties. And you want unlicenced people doing minor surgery?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Whoops - my fault for replying without sufficient coffee. :cover:

What I mean is that even in societies that allow parents to harm their children to some degree (with nasty physical discipline, for instance), even they have limits. I think that chopping off pieces of your childrens' skin can be reasonably be considered to be beyond a reasonable limit. I think this is the case even if the child recovers fully.


Why not?

I'm being completely serious here.

Are there any other areas where you think that an unlicenced, unaccredited person should be permitted to perform medical procedures?

We live in a society where putting fish in your foot bath can have legal penalties. And you want unlicenced people doing minor surgery?

I never said he should be unlicensed or unaccredited.

 

[Magic Man]

Seems to be the case for those who figure infant ear piercing is no big deal (especially in comparison to circumcision).

Has most of the same drawbacks as circumcision... child doesn't consent, unnecessary, comes with a medical risk...

But it can heal. No lasting harm, no foul.

But who thinks that? I certainly think piercing young children's ears is wrong, too. But this doesn't answer the question. Even if I considered piercing children to be OK, I would still consider it bodily injury.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I never said he should be unlicensed or unaccredited.

So you think that the government should be in the business of licencing mohels?

 

[Magic Man]

I don't see intensity of sexual pleasure a basic human right... Why do you?

But don't you see letting someone decide for themselves whether they want diminished sensitivity from sex or not? I wouldn't say "intensity of sexual pleasure" is the basic human right; I'd say the basic human right is to have your normal body remain intact unless it's deemed medically necessary to alter it or you decide to alter it.

 

[Magic Man]

egregious harm?

The study you provided from the Canadian Paediatric Society had this to say:

The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns.

Doesn't say it shouldn't ever be done... just says it shouldn't be routine.

And that's fair enough... it shouldn't be routine... it should be available upon request by the parents.

"so evenly balanced".... not what I think of when I think of "egregious harm".

It shouldn't be routine, as in it should only be performed when medically necessary.

 

[Storm]

But don't you see letting someone decide for themselves whether they want diminished sensitivity from sex or not? I wouldn't say "intensity of sexual pleasure" is the basic human right; I'd say the basic human right is to have your normal body remain intact unless it's deemed medically necessary to alter it or you decide to alter it.

Damnit! I keep hitting Edit instead of Quote. I don't think I altered your post, but double check for me, please.

Anyway...

No, I wouldn't even consider that a basic human right. It would certainly be my personal preference, but that's nowhere near the same thing.

 

[Magic Man]

Damnit! I keep hitting Edit instead of Quote. I don't think I altered your post, but double check for me, please.

Anyway...

No, I wouldn't even consider that a basic human right. It would certainly be my personal preference, but that's nowhere near the same thing.

Really? You don't consider making the decisions about what's done to your own body to be a basic human right? I thought that was the most basic human right there is.

 

[Storm]

Really? You don't consider making the decisions about what's done to your own body to be a basic human right? I thought that was the most basic human right there is.

Not as a child, no.

When I was 6 or so, I had a minor and optional surgery. It was terrifying, and I would have opted out. My parents overruled me, and had every right to do so.

 

[tumbleweed41]

No, I wouldn't even consider that a basic human right. It would certainly be my personal preference, but that's nowhere near the same thing.

Do you not consider the right to bodily integrity a basic human right
Or freedom of religion or from forcible religious participation a basic human right?
And yes, a parent can force their child to go to church or temple or mosque or synagogue, but is it their right to mark them permanently as a participant of that religion?

 

[Storm]

Do you not consider the right to bodily integrity a basic human right

See my reply to mball.

Or freedom of religion or from forcible religious participation a basic human right?

Same deal.

And yes, a parent can force their child to go to church or temple or mosque or synagogue, but is it their right to mark them permanently as a participant of that religion?

Why not? On a religious level, I don't see it as any different than baptism. When the child is capable of such decisions, they are free to reject the covenant in question regardless of their parents' wishes or actions.

I'm guessing you'll respond with "but circumcision is physical." So what?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Why not? On a religious level, I don't see it as any different than baptism. When the child is capable of such decisions, they are free to reject the covenant in question regardless of their parents' wishes or actions.

I'm guessing you'll respond with "but circumcision is physical." So what?

So you would have no problem with ritual scarification of an infant by it's parents?

 

[England my lionheart]

I really don't see what the problem is with waiting until the Child is a teenager and let them decide.

 

[Sunstone]

I really don't see what the problem is with waiting until the Child is a teenager and let them decide.

I agree.

 

[Breathe]

i really don't see what the problem is with waiting until the child is a teenager and let them decide.

100%.

 

[Storm]

So you would have no problem with ritual scarification of an infant by it's parents?

It would depend on the level of physical trauma.

There's a fine line dividing modification from mutilation, as well as "I disapprove of your choices as a parent" to child abuse.

As I said, male circumcision is a parental choice I would never make voluntarily. I don't think it crosses the line on either spectrum, however. Which makes it none of my damned business.

 

[Storm]

I really don't see what the problem is with waiting until the Child is a teenager and let them decide.

That's because it isn't YOUR cultural mandate. It's theirs. Which brings us back to my initial assessment of c. imperialism.