Circumcision: Double Standard?

[Alyakia]

would we be going in circles if i said parents cannot or should not be allowed to give their kids unnecessary medical procedures because they feel like it? (also doctors with a cultural bias will say it's totally great i guess)

This is what I was hoping to try and steer this towards eventually.

Most of you here don't have any problem with the process of circumcision. What you have a problem with is the practice of infant circumcision for reasons not explicitly medical.
This does not mean these reasons cannot be used, just that you believe it should not be performed on an infant who cannot consent. The issue being is that the parents are consenting on the infant's behalf.

is there a limit to what a parent can consent to on an infants behalf?

[The Alma Mater]

Oh, quite often.

For example; consider giving a babyboy a blowjob, or have a babygirl lick a growns mans penis until he orgasms.
Assuming there are no STDs involved, there is no actual harm to the baby in both scenarios - or at least vastly less than the removal of the foreskin. Yet we have quite significant jailsentences for this nevertheless.

The act itself is what is deemed wrong; the actual practical impact is considered unimportant.

The act is considered wrong partly for the obvious moral reasons but also because we consider the sexual exploitation of minors, infants especially (which your examples clearly are) to be emotionally damaging and an abuse of the power one has over these minors, infants especially.

Exactly. And yet there is no objective reason to state these actions are actually harmful to the infants in question. All the other arguments apply equally to circumcision (in the case of traditional male circumcision they apply directly, since sucking the boys penis in that case is actually part of the procedure. However, this is rarely done nowadays).

[Imperializt Russia]

This is what I was hoping to try and steer this towards eventually.

Most of you here don't have any problem with the process of circumcision. What you have a problem with is the practice of infant circumcision for reasons not explicitly medical.
This does not mean these reasons cannot be used, just that you believe it should not be performed on an infant who cannot consent. The issue being is that the parents are consenting on the infant's behalf.

is there a limit to what a parent can consent to on an infants behalf?

That which is within the bounds of the law.
Presently, there is no law that states parents cannot consent on the behalf of an infant to undergo a non-medical circumcision.

[Imperializt Russia]

The act is considered wrong partly for the obvious moral reasons but also because we consider the sexual exploitation of minors, infants especially (which your examples clearly are) to be emotionally damaging and an abuse of the power one has over these minors, infants especially.

Exactly. And yet there is no objective reason to state these actions are actually harmful to the infants in question. All the other arguments apply equally to circumcision (in the case of traditional male circumcision they apply directly, since sucking the boys penis in that case is actually part of the procedure. However, this is rarely done nowadays).

It would only be comparable if that component was for the sexual gratification of the child or the person performing the procedure though.

[Alyakia]

is there a limit to what a parent can consent to on an infants behalf?

That which is within the bounds of the law.
Presently, there is no law that states parents cannot consent on the behalf of an infant to undergo a non-medical circumcision.

i'm asking you to say what you think the bounds of the law should be. don't give me this legalist bullshit.

[Divitaen]

is there a limit to what a parent can consent to on an infants behalf?

That which is within the bounds of the law.
Presently, there is no law that states parents cannot consent on the behalf of an infant to undergo a non-medical circumcision.

And that is precisely what needs to change. Non-medical circumcision is a violation of the rights of an infant.

[The Alma Mater]

Exactly. And yet there is no objective reason to state these actions are actually harmful to the infants in question. All the other arguments apply equally to circumcision (in the case of traditional male circumcision they apply directly, since sucking the boys penis in that case is actually part of the procedure. However, this is rarely done nowadays).

It would only be comparable if that component was for the sexual gratification of the child or the person performing the procedure though.

Nonsense. It is fully comparable because it is done without the childs desire or consent to solely satisfy a desire of the adult.

[Imperializt Russia]

That which is within the bounds of the law.
Presently, there is no law that states parents cannot consent on the behalf of an infant to undergo a non-medical circumcision.

i'm asking you to say what you think the bounds of the law should be. don't give me this legalist bullshit.

I've already told you (and the wider thread) that I'm wholly ambivalent to the issue at large. I would make no opposition, verbal, token or otherwise, if the law changed to make it so that it was no longer permitted.

It simply does not concern me, as I do not believe it to be a problematic issue.

[Test208]

It simply does not concern me, as I do not believe it to be a problematic issue.

He has no moral compass.

[Alyakia]

i'm asking you to say what you think the bounds of the law should be. don't give me this legalist bullshit.

I've already told you (and the wider thread) that I'm wholly ambivalent to the issue at large. I would make no opposition, verbal, token or otherwise, if the law changed to make it so that it was no longer permitted.

It simply does not concern me, as I do not believe it to be a problematic issue.

what about other issues then? tattoos? plastic surgery? even if you're going to do this we can still do this to an extent.

[Divitaen]

i'm asking you to say what you think the bounds of the law should be. don't give me this legalist bullshit.

I've already told you (and the wider thread) that I'm wholly ambivalent to the issue at large. I would make no opposition, verbal, token or otherwise, if the law changed to make it so that it was no longer permitted.

It simply does not concern me, as I do not believe it to be a problematic issue.

Why are you ambivalent on this issue though? That's what confuses me. It feels to me like non-medical circumcision on an infant is a clear-cut case of a violation of the infant's bodily sovereignty.

[Test208]

Why are you ambivalent on this issue though? That's what confuses me. It feels to me like non-medical circumcision on an infant is a clear-cut case of a violation of the infant's bodily sovereignty.

There's nothing to understand, he's a psychopath.

[Divitaen]

Why are you ambivalent on this issue though? That's what confuses me. It feels to me like non-medical circumcision on an infant is a clear-cut case of a violation of the infant's bodily sovereignty.

There's nothing to understand, he's a psychopath.

I wouldn't say 'psychopath'. I'm just curious what his reason is for ambivalence on this.

[Test208]

I wouldn't say 'psychopath'. I'm just curious what his reason is for ambivalence on this.

No empathy, no conscience.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why are you ambivalent on this issue though? That's what confuses me. It feels to me like non-medical circumcision on an infant is a clear-cut case of a violation of the infant's bodily sovereignty.

There's nothing to understand, he's a psychopath.

Just because someone is ambivalent and doesn't see it as a big issue that will define humanity for the next century doesn't mean they are psychopaths.

TO be fair, this is an issue, but only in so far as my children are concerned. I'm not putting them through a circumcision and my partner has to understand that if I ever marry someone. That doesn't mean I actually give that much of a shit at large. I don't. The issue is so minor with opt-outs in the U.S. that it really needs to be addressed from a moral manner and not a legalistic one.

[Imperializt Russia]

I wouldn't say 'psychopath'. I'm just curious what his reason is for ambivalence on this.

No empathy, no conscience.

Yes, that's why I become physically enraged in the European Migrant Crisis thread over people's largely racially-derived opinions on people fleeing war and violence

[Divitaen]

No empathy, no conscience.

Yes, that's why I become physically enraged in the European Migrant Crisis thread over people's largely racially-derived opinions on people fleeing war and violence

Look clearly calling you a psychopath is going too far and unfounded, but I am curious why you are ambivalent on this issue.

[Imperializt Russia]

There's nothing to understand, he's a psychopath.

I wouldn't say 'psychopath'. I'm just curious what his reason is for ambivalence on this.

To me, my foreskin is a flap of skin. I have lots of skin. I'm really not fussed.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No empathy, no conscience.

Yes, that's why I become physically enraged in the European Migrant Crisis thread over people's largely racially-derived opinions on people fleeing war and violence

Wait, you got enraged?!

I thought you usually kept your cool at all times. To be fair though, it is hard to do.

[Divitaen]

I wouldn't say 'psychopath'. I'm just curious what his reason is for ambivalence on this.

To me, my foreskin is a flap of skin. I have lots of skin. I'm really not fussed.

Yeah I understand it can feel trivial, but doesn't non-medical circumcision feel very much like a violation of an infant's bodily sovereignty? It may not be an issue to you, but hypothetically to a non-consenting infant we can't make that assumption that it will be a non-issue to him too.

[Test208]

Yes, that's why I become physically enraged in the European Migrant Crisis thread over people's largely racially-derived opinions on people fleeing war and violence

Having a hot button issue doesn't mean you have empathy.

[Alyakia]

I wouldn't say 'psychopath'. I'm just curious what his reason is for ambivalence on this.

To me, my foreskin is a flap of skin. I have lots of skin. I'm really not fussed.

so are your earlobes. would you let parents lop them off if they felt like it?

[Alyakia]

breaking research from country where most children have their ear lobes removed shows that removing ear lobes has clear medical benefits! you'd be a fool not to.

[Imperializt Russia]

Yes, that's why I become physically enraged in the European Migrant Crisis thread over people's largely racially-derived opinions on people fleeing war and violence

Wait, you got enraged?!

I thought you usually kept your cool at all times. To be fair though, it is hard to do.

About twice a day, usually in that thread or one in a similar vein, I will have a physical fit of rage over the inanity and callousness of statements therein.

I've learnt from my lengthy ban history and mostly keep the more colourful aspects of this rage out of the posts.

[Imperializt Russia]

To me, my foreskin is a flap of skin. I have lots of skin. I'm really not fussed.

so are your earlobes. would you let parents lop them off if they felt like it?

Well, no, because I'm 22 and that would be an interesting legal situation they do not have control in.

I guess really, I've just come to see circumcision as such a normalised procedure that I don't see anything drastically wrong with it.