"Iceland Could Become first Country to Ban Male Circumcision"

[Koldo]

Not as far as consent is concerned. A 10 year old is no more able to consider the consequences of life changing decisions than a 3 year old.

Prove it.

Btw there is a 4 year old in Australia who has decided to gender reassignment surgery before they have attended their first day in kindergarten, and a court approved the decision.

Yes, a four-year-old child allowed to undergo sex change

I will look into it but if that's true I am totally opposed!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Good for Iceland! Body modifications should not be performed on children or those who have not given explicit consent.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So in Iceland prostitution is legal but participating in divinely established covenant by circumcising is not.

Don't like it? Don't move to Iceland, I guess.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Prove it.



I will look into it but if that's true I am totally opposed!

Well that article was certainly fair and not alarmist in any way.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I don't buy into male circumcision as being mutilation unless the surgery is botched somehow. It was a valiant effort though. Female circumcision, um, no... just, no.

Go ahead. Explain that double standard in a logically consistent way. I mean, hey, great you don't approve of female circumcision, really. But by what possible standard can you condemn one but not the other?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So parents that ok gender reassignment before age 18 are child abusers then?

No, as that falls under the line of medically necessary. And generally surgeons won't operate on someone who is under 18. 4 I doubt very much, 10 is probably even too young according to many medical practitioners.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I simply don't understand why any government would get involved in such a trivial matter as male circumcision.

Perfect world fallacy. It is possible to address more than one problem at a time, you know?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No, as that falls under the line of medically necessary. And generally surgeons won't operate on someone who is under 18. 4 I doubt very much, 10 is probably even too young according to many medical practitioners.

I'd be very interested to hear more about the 4 year old as a case study. The implication that this is being done on a whim is ridiculous. IF this 4 year old exists, I don't believe that anyone, either parents of medical staff, would be considering GRT without extremely compelling and unusual reasons.

 

[joe1776]

It is a tricky situation because parents want to have the right to make decisions for their children but at the same time they are not taking in consideration that the child is an individual that is being denied a choice because he's not old enough to say no.

Lots of animals can be trained using the reward and punishment method.

I think it's wrong when Christian parents manipulate the minds of their young children using Heaven (reward) and Hell (punishment) to deny them of a freewill choice. You mean well, I understand that, but I don't think that's excuses the behavior.

 

[Curious George]

It's being surgically altered from it's natural appearance for non medical reasons.

So are pierced ears, fingernail clippings, cutting hair, non-cancerous mole removal, cochlear implants and spinal fusion in some instances.

Let us be very clear. Parents do choose to alter their children's natural state for non-medical reasons. If this were the only criteria in establishing "mutilation" then we will have a mutilation category that borders on ridiculous.

You can paint the surgery as mutilation but at the end of the day it is just an elective surgery that parents choose for their child.

This is a government telling parents what they can and cannot do with their child. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It is about drawing a line when such intrusion is ok.

I think most people will agree such an intrusion is acceptable when a parent is for instance starving their child. I think we also agree that cutting a child's hair is not something that warrants government intrusion. So where is the line?

I understand that calling circumcision "mutilation" allows you to think that circumcision falls on the warrants government intrusion side of the line. But, many people do not equate it to mutilation. While there is a permanent change, many do not consider that permanent change a disfigurement.

That leaves us several options, you can try to convince them it is a disfigurement, you can clearly articulate the issue without calling it mutilation, or you can go on preaching about mutilation because you really do not care to hear other perspectives.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So are pierced ears, fingernail clippings, cutting hair, non-cancerous mole removal, cochlear implants and spinal fusion in some instances.

For the most part, those are temporary. Cochlear implants and such are medically necessary. Circumcision is not temporary, and generally is not medically necessary.

You can paint the surgery as mutilation but at the end of the day it is just an elective surgery that parents choose for their child.

Unless medically necessary, body modifications should not be performed on children. They should be old enough to understand it themselves, and make that choice for themselves. Parents should not be able to chose such a thing for their child.The child should be able to chose for himself.

 

[Father Heathen]

So are pierced ears, fingernail clippings, cutting hair,

Yeah, this is where I stopped reading. Are you really trying to compare removing foreskin to clipping fingernails or cutting hair?

 

[joe1776]

So are pierced ears, fingernail clippings, cutting hair, non-cancerous mole removal, cochlear implants and spinal fusion in some instances.

Let us be very clear. Parents do choose to alter their children's natural state for non-medical reasons. If this were the only criteria in establishing "mutilation" then we will have a mutilation category that borders on ridiculous.

You can paint the surgery as mutilation but at the end of the day it is just an elective surgery that parents choose for their child.

This is a government telling parents what they can and cannot do with their child. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It is about drawing a line when such intrusion is ok.

I think most people will agree such an intrusion is acceptable when a parent is for instance starving their child. I think we also agree that cutting a child's hair is not something that warrants government intrusion. So where is the line?

I understand that calling circumcision "mutilation" allows you to think that circumcision falls on the warrants government intrusion side of the line. But, many people do not equate it to mutilation. While there is a permanent change, many do not consider that permanent change a disfigurement.

That leaves us several options, you can try to convince them it is a disfigurement, you can clearly articulate the issue without calling it mutilation, or you can go on preaching about mutilation because you really do not care to hear other perspectives.

I disagree with your point of view.

The goal of a criminal justice system should be to protect innocent citizens from harm. There's no doubt that an innocent baby is being harmed. The question in my mind is -- Is the harm serious enough to infringe upon the religious rights of the parent? It's a tough call.

 

[Curious George]

For the most part, those are temporary. Cochlear implants and such are medically necessary. Circumcision is not temporary, and generally is not medically necessary.

Cochlear implants are not necessary. I understand that permanence is a factor here. The definition that was given for mutilation had no temporal element. If the OP wants to better define mutilation he can add permanency to the equation. That still does not account for spinal fusions, cochlear implants, or non-cancerous mole removal, or early piercing if used for a long perioday of time.

Unless medically necessary, body modifications should not be performed on children. They should be old enough to understand it themselves, and make that choice for themselves. Parents should not be able to chose such a thing for their child.The child should be able to chose for himself.

Ok that is a hard line. That includes spinal fusion, cochlear implants, and mole removal.

 

[Curious George]

I disagree with your point of view.

The goal of a criminal justice system should be to protect innocent citizens from harm. There's no doubt that an innocent baby is being harmed. The question in my mind is -- Is the harm serious enough to infringe upon the religious rights of the parent? It's a tough call.

But it is not even necessary to evoke religious rights of the parents. It is simply a parents right to raise their child as they see fit. We need a reason to overcome the assumption that a parent is acting in the best interest for their child. In other words, it is not clear that harm is being done to the child. It is not clear that the child is being endangered. We must prove that harm and that the harm is great enough to merit intervention.

 

[Curious George]

Yeah, this is where I stopped reading. Are you really trying to compare removing foreskin to clipping fingernails or cutting hair?

No, I recognize how they are distinct. I am simply applying your definition as written. If you didn't mean what you wrote why did you write it?

The point is that your definition needs reworking. You can go around screaming that every little thing is mutilation. You gave a definition for the use of the extreme term "mutilation." As preposterous as it is to you that cutting a person's hair is mutilation, so too, for some, is the idea that circumcision is mutilation.

Perhaps you should have just continued reading, and the point would have registered.

 

[joe1776]

But it is not even necessary to evoke religious rights of the parents. It is simply a parents right to raise their child as they see fit. We need a reason to overcome the assumption that a parent is acting in the best interest for their child. In other words, it is not clear that harm is being done to the child. It is not clear that the child is being endangered. We must prove that harm and that the harm is great enough to merit intervention.

Parents don't have the right to raise their child as they see fit. There are laws prohibiting abuse that limit their rights. I disagree that "it is not clear that harm is being done." I think it's obvious that harm is being done.

 

[Curious George]

Parents don't have the right to raise their child as they see fit. There are laws prohibiting abuse that limit their rights. I disagree that "it is not clear that harm is being done." I think it's obvious that harm is being done.

Those laws are in place because we have justified actions as harmful enough to intervene in a parents right to raise their child as they see fit.

I clearly alluded to this. So yes there is a right for parents to raise their child as they see fit. This right is not unfettered. Whether or not circumcision causes harm or causes enough harm to merit intervention is at discussion here. So far, one country believes it is, and all other countries that acknowledge parental rights and have child abuse laws acknowledge that it is not or at least under certain regulations that it is not.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yeah, this is where I stopped reading. Are you really trying to compare removing foreskin to clipping fingernails or cutting hair?

Obvious difference being... fingernails, hair, and even ear piercings grow back...

 

[Curious George]

Obvious difference being... fingernails, hair, and even ear piercings grow back...

And as I explained, there was no element of permanency in his definition. Regardless, are you suggesting that permanency is required for a practice to be considered abusive?