• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Infant circumcision

Cutting bits off people is assault.
Any lawyer wants to debate that with me, meet me in Glasgow Central Station at 09:00 on Saturday.
I'll be the one with the kukri.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Cutting bits off people is assault.
Click to expand...


No, it really isn't. Your silly rhetoric aside, almost nothing short of murder qualifies as assault if one has the consent of the target. That's why the defensive line of the Denver Broncos doesn't get arrested every time they crash into their opponents.

As for whether a newborn baby can consent, obviously he cannot. He cannot consent to anything. So, his parents hold the power of consent for him. If the parents consent to a circumcision, it is legally not assault - not in the US, not in Australia, and not most other places.

As to whether you think that parents should be able to consent to circumcision, that is not a legal issue. It's a political one. And, lucky for me, I have absolutely no interest in your political views whatsoever.
 
Loss Leader said:
No, it really isn't. Your silly rhetoric aside, almost nothing short of murder qualifies as assault if one has the consent of the target. That's why the defensive line of the Denver Broncos doesn't get arrested every time they crash into their opponents.

As for whether a newborn baby can consent, obviously he cannot. He cannot consent to anything. So, his parents hold the power of consent for him. If the parents consent to a circumcision, it is legally not assault - not in the US, not in Australia, and not most other places.
As to whether you think that parents should be able to consent to circumcision, that is not a legal issue. It's a political one. And, lucky for me, I have absolutely no interest in your political views whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I see you've read the more of the wikilink I posted. :p

The problem with your argument is of course that all such definitions are arbitrary and often change within a cultural, and more than that this discussion has not been about legal definitions so your point is really nothing more than a pedantic point.

For a good example of how cultural changes change legal definitions: 20 years ago a man could not (in the UK) be charged with raping his wife because according to the legislation and case law (at that time) simply marrying a man was considered to be her consent. Thankfully society has moved on and has changed what it considers to be rape in a legal sense, I suspect the change in the non-legal definition happened long before the change in the legal definition.
 
In this country it's assault to smack a misbehaving child on the ankle. I find it hard to see how any legal system can see that as assault , but not see cutting bits off the same child as assault. So next time a kid screams , it's ok to cut her tongue out? If your point is that legal systems are often inconsistent, fair enough. we all accept that. I'm talking about reality here, not legal nicety.
 
Soapy Sam said:
In this country it's assault to smack a misbehaving child on the ankle. I find it hard to see how any legal system can see that as assault , but not see cutting bits off the same child as assault. So next time a kid screams , it's ok to cut her tongue out? If your point is that legal systems are often inconsistent, fair enough. we all accept that. I'm talking about reality here, not legal nicety.
Click to expand...

I think cutting out the tongue is a bit severe but I have no issues in trimming it to an attractive profile. Same for the ears, if parents want to cut the top of their child's ears to an attractive point who am I to criticize them?
 
The Fool said:
I think cutting out the tongue is a bit severe but I have no issues in trimming it to an attractive profile. Same for the ears, if parents want to cut the top of their child's ears to an attractive point who am I to criticize them?
Click to expand...

Some nice pointy teeth too?

 
Loss Leader said:
Your silly rhetoric aside, almost nothing short of murder qualifies as assault if one has the consent of the target.
Click to expand...

Which is rather an important issue, where infant circumcision is concerned. If parents held the unlimited right to consent to an act of harm against their child, then - for example - brain damage due to shaking could not be prosecuted as an assault. Therefore, there are limits on the power of consent parents can be allowed to hold. And it seems axiomatic to me that the removal of healthy tissue, with no immediate medical justification, constitutes harm. Why, then, should parents be allowed to inflict unnecessary harm on their children in this way, given that they are not allowed to do so in others?

Dave
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Which is rather an important issue, where infant circumcision is concerned. If parents held the unlimited right to consent to an act of harm against their child, then - for example - brain damage due to shaking could not be prosecuted as an assault. Therefore, there are limits on the power of consent parents can be allowed to hold. And it seems axiomatic to me that the removal of healthy tissue, with no immediate medical justification, constitutes harm. Why, then, should parents be allowed to inflict unnecessary harm on their children in this way, given that they are not allowed to do so in others?

Dave
Click to expand...

Not to mention that ANY alteration to a minor female's genitals is illegal in this country.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Why, then, should parents be allowed to inflict unnecessary harm on their children in this way, given that they are not allowed to do so in others?
Click to expand...

Which comes back to, why then do doctors perform routine circumcision? I think that's where the responsibility lies. If parents couldn't find a doctor willing to do the procedure -- and if, when they asked doctors, they got good information rather than the doctor's personal bias -- then it wouldn't happen.
 
Dave Rogers said:
And it seems axiomatic to me that the removal of healthy tissue, with no immediate medical justification, constitutes harm. Why, then, should parents be allowed to inflict unnecessary harm on their children in this way, given that they are not allowed to do so in others?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure why it would seem axiomatic to you, as plain observation shows it to be nothing of the sort. In any case, I neither know nor care why the line regarding what a parent can consent to falls on the side of allowing circumcision. It does. It will (in America, at least) never change. Your questions are legally and politically meaningless.
 
Well, it certainly carries the risk of harm. And the problem is, the harm (if the circumcision is poorly done) can be hard to repair. If you just leave it alone, a few boys may develop a problem, but the surgery can be done then if necessary. Or if they choose to have it done electively, the option will be open for them (and the reverse is not true).

Taking perfectly healthy boys and subjecting them to a procedure that has some degree of risk, when chances are good that if left alone they will never need that procedure, just doesn't seem rational.
 
Loss Leader said:
I'm not sure why it would seem axiomatic to you, as plain observation shows it to be nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's serious harm, but I can see no other way to classify the deliberate and medically unnecessary removal of healthy tissue without the consent of the subject.

Loss Leader said:
In any case, I neither know nor care why the line regarding what a parent can consent to falls on the side of allowing circumcision. It does. It will (in America, at least) never change.
Click to expand...

I'm sure many similar predictions have been made that turned out to be groundless.

Loss Leader said:
Your questions are legally and politically meaningless.
Click to expand...

"Should" is never a question about the current state of the law, but rather about the preferable state of the law. As such, it's fundamentally a political question, and certainly not a meaningless one. And if your only answer is that the majority believes something, then that's no more than argumentum ad populum. The majority opinion is perfectly capable of changing.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Why, then, should parents be allowed to inflict unnecessary harm on their children in this way, given that they are not allowed to do so in others?
Click to expand...


Religion. And also the fact that a lot of people who were circumcized don't want to admit that there is anything wrong with non medical circumcision. Which I guess is basically an argument from tradition.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I'm not saying it's serious harm, but I can see no other way to classify the deliberate and medically unnecessary removal of healthy tissue without the consent of the subject.
Click to expand...


They have the consent of the subject, by his agent.

A newborn can't consent to anything, so you can end every single sentence regarding a baby with the same words, "without the consent of the subject."

"Mandy took little baby Marcus to the mall, without the consent of the subject."

"We saw a bunny and I helped little Jimmy pet it, without the consent of the subject."

The mere fact that the baby didn't consent is without meaning. It adds nothing to your argument. I mean, that bunny might have had rabies! Should parents really be allowed to expose their children to rabies without the consent of the subject?

The answer, by the way, is, "Yes, they should."
 
Loss Leader said:
They have the consent of the subject, by his agent.

A newborn can't consent to anything, so you can end every single sentence regarding a baby with the same words, "without the consent of the subject."
Click to expand...

Because there are specific and immediate benefits to the child involved, and no certainty of irreversible body modification.

So if, as you've said earlier, no act short of murder can be classed as assault if it involves the consent of the subject, and parents are able to consent on behalf of their children, what crime has a parent committed who - for example - breaks their child's arm deliberately? Murder has not been committed, and the parent has the power to give consent on behalf of the child. How about amputation of an earlobe - is that OK? After all, earlobes are no more important than foreskins, and amputation of the earlobe reduces the risk of infection after a botched ear piercing.

Circumcision is the deliberate and irreversible removal of healthy tissue with no medical benefit from people who cannot consent to it or resist it. There is no rational argument for it being even permissible, never mind near-universal. The only argument ever advanced is a variation on "everybody does it". That's simply not good enough.

I realise it may never change. That doesn't make it acceptable.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom