Circumcision

[Loss Leader]

Yes it would. For example in the UK and most EU countries parents can no longer refuse on behalf of their child required medical treatment for any reason whether that be religious or not because society no longer accepts that a parent has such a right.

What you speak of does not represent a sea change in the law or even the adoption of any new or competing concepts. Parents exercise a child's right to refuse medical treatment and the state steps in to protect the best interests of the child. All that has happened in Europe (if that really is the state of the law there) is that slightly more emphasis has been placed on the idea that a child's best interests include trusting established medicine to acheive optimal health.

What would happen in the EU if there were two competing treatments - surgery with a possible great benefit and an appreciable risk of death or medicine with no risk of death but with less benefit? Would the state step in to take the decision away from the parents in that case? It would not.

All you have identified is a small difference in the weight of some priorities in Europe and the US. The concepts underpinning the different laws are exactly the same.

 

[3point14]

I have adequately addressed you questions throughout this thread. The state's interest in the best interests of children means that interventions with dubious benefit but clear drawbacks will not generally be tolerated. Though foot binding might provide some social benefit, its obvious deleterious effects on the physical abilities of the hobbled girls would probably make it unacceptable. You may apply this test to the other practices you mentioned and try to guess what a court might do if faced with the situation.

Yes, but what I asked was where do you draw the line?

If your circumcision of your child clearly falls on one side of the 'state may not interfere' line, and foot binding on the other, where is the line? Or how do you decide where the line is drawn? I feel that without being able to lay down that definition, your position is untenable as you cannot distinguish between 'cultural practices' and 'child abuse'.

(Please note, I am in no way accusing you of child abuse, please believe that)

 

[Loss Leader]

Yes, but what I asked was where do you draw the line?

If your circumcision of your child clearly falls on one side of the 'state may not interfere' line, and foot binding on the other, where is the line? Or how do you decide where the line is drawn? I feel that without being able to lay down that definition, your position is untenable as you cannot distinguish between 'cultural practices' and 'child abuse'.

Your question is one that all law students struggle with and all law students are initially unhappy with. It is the "quantum physics" of law in that, if one is not outraged upon first hearing it, one probably doesn;t understand what is said.

What follows is the real answer and it is one I am perfectly comfortable with:

There is no line.

There is no line between what is right and what is wrong - what is a cultural practice and what is child abuse, or what is consent and what is lack of consent or anything else in all of law. As you approach the border - any border - the law becomes more indistinct and harder to discern. All black and white tests will produce grey in close cases.

Furthermore, the fact that the public consciousness is always changing means that anything that was clear yesterday may not be tomorrow. And each case develops specific facts that mean that it is applicable only to itself. The next case will be different and those differences may mean an entirely different answer. And since nothing arises out of context, nothing can be determined beforehand about it.

I'm sorry if this ambiguity causes you to want to lump everything together and say that there is no right or wrong in my definition. Away from the tough cases, there is. But closer to the edges, that distinction cannot be made in the same way.

So, no one would argue that a parent lacks the ability to decide whether his son should wear a blue shirt or a green one.

Vanishingly few would argue that a parent lacks the ability to decide whether to take his son to church.

Very few would argue that a parent lacks the ability to circumcize a child.

Some might argue for and some against ritual tattooing or scarring.

Most would argue against footbinding.

Almost all would argue against refusing a transfusion.

Everybody would argue against keeping a child in a small cage 23 hours a day.

It's a continuum. There is no bright line test.

 

[3point14]

Your question is one that all law students struggle with and all law students are initially unhappy with. It is the "quantum physics" of law in that, if one is not outraged upon first hearing it, one probably doesn;t understand what is said.

What follows is the real answer and it is one I am perfectly comfortable with:

There is no line.

There is no line between what is right and what is wrong - what is a cultural practice and what is child abuse, or what is consent and what is lack of consent or anything else in all of law. As you approach the border - any border - the law becomes more indistinct and harder to discern. All black and white tests will produce grey in close cases.

Furthermore, the fact that the public consciousness is always changing means that anything that was clear yesterday may not be tomorrow. And each case develops specific facts that mean that it is applicable only to itself. The next case will be different and those differences may mean an entirely different answer. And since nothing arises out of context, nothing can be determined beforehand about it.

I'm sorry if this ambiguity causes you to want to lump everything together and say that there is no right or wrong in my definition. Away from the tough cases, there is. But closer to the edges, that distinction cannot be made in the same way.

So, no one would argue that a parent lacks the ability to decide whether his son should wear a blue shirt or a green one.

Vanishingly few would argue that a parent lacks the ability to decide whether to take his son to church.

Very few would argue that a parent lacks the ability to circumcize a child.

Some might argue for and some against ritual tattooing or scarring.

Most would argue against footbinding.

Almost all would argue against refusing a transfusion.

Everybody would argue against keeping a child in a small cage 23 hours a day.

It's a continuum. There is no bright line test.

It is, but I think most of us can say with some degree of cedrtainty that the line can be drawn between point 'a' and point 'b', and that anything between would be subject to the description you eloquently give above.

I myself can make a damn good stab at saying, at least between two points, where the line lies. I think you could too, if you tried hard enough, but obviously, I can't say that with any certainty (not being you)


(ETA - oh, and these two:

Very few would argue that a parent lacks the ability to circumcize a child.

Some might argue for and some against ritual tattooing or scarring.

I could take issue with, but I don't think that's the point.

 

[Loss Leader]

It is, but I think most of us can say with some degree of cedrtainty that the line can be drawn between point 'a' and point 'b', and that anything between would be subject to the description you eloquently give above.

I myself can make a damn good stab at saying, at least between two points, where the line lies. I think you could too, if you tried hard enough, but obviously, I can't say that with any certainty (not being you)

I agree. We can certainly say that the line between parental care and child abuse lies somewhere between giving your child a warm bath and pouring boiling water over his head. The problem is that the closer we get to the line, the more indistinct it becomes.

Your list of hypotheticals (except, in my opinion, footbinding) were all so close to the line that any black and white rule won't work. Instead, we'd have to examine the circumstances of each individual case and, even then, two reasonable judges may disagree.

I could take issue with, but I don't think that's the point.

No, my point was that there's a continuum. Move my examples to wherever you like along that line.

 

[3point14]

I agree. We can certainly say that the line between parental care and child abuse lies somewhere between giving your child a warm bath and pouring boiling water over his head. The problem is that the closer we get to the line, the more indistinct it becomes.

Your list of hypotheticals (except, in my opinion, footbinding) were all so close to the line that any black and white rule won't work. Instead, we'd have to examine the circumstances of each individual case and, even then, two reasonable judges may disagree.





No, my point was that there's a continuum. Move my examples to wherever you like along that line.

Again, your point is taken (not that I agree with you about the issue under discussion, you understand) but I'm not sure that that's the end of it. Indeed, in terms of law, as you use that example above, there is an objective standard laid down in statute (I believe*) but the difficulty arises in comparing the act to the standard set. I think it would be difficult to write a standard that (setting religious and cultural values aside) included circumcision, and didn’t include a number of other things that you might (and I stress might) find distasteful.



*Disclaimer - my legal expertise consists only of having been in court once for speeding.

 

[Oroborus]

I don't really understand why everyone is throwing around words like barbaric and cruel. It's not as if people circumcised at birth are plagued by nightmares of it for the rest of their life. Sure medically there might not be justification for it, but on the flip side is there any reason medically why they shouldnt be? And if there isnt, then really its just a matter of preference imo.

 

[Loss Leader]

I don't really understand why everyone is throwing around words like barbaric and cruel. It's not as if people circumcised at birth are plagued by nightmares of it for the rest of their life. Sure medically there might not be justification for it, but on the flip side is there any reason medically why they shouldnt be? And if there isnt, then really its just a matter of preference imo.

Who cares? Your screen name is great. I loved Red Dwarf.

 

[Loss Leader]

I think it would be difficult to write a standard that (setting religious and cultural values aside) included circumcision, and didn’t include a number of other things that you might (and I stress might) find distasteful.

That's exactly right. But my distaste for, say, ritual scarring, does nothing to change the fact that there might be circumstances under which a pluralistic society has to agree that its none of their business if some people want to purposefully scar their kids. There is no way to craft a rule that works perfectly in all circumstances forever - everything near the line will always require interpretation.

*Disclaimer - my legal expertise consists only of having been in court once for speeding.

I am a lawyer.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Your question is one that all law students struggle with and all law students are initially unhappy with. It is the "quantum physics" of law in that, if one is not outraged upon first hearing it, one probably doesn;t understand what is said.

What follows is the real answer and it is one I am perfectly comfortable with:

There is no line.

There is no line between what is right and what is wrong - what is a cultural practice and what is child abuse, or what is consent and what is lack of consent or anything else in all of law. As you approach the border - any border - the law becomes more indistinct and harder to discern. All black and white tests will produce grey in close cases.

Furthermore, the fact that the public consciousness is always changing means that anything that was clear yesterday may not be tomorrow. And each case develops specific facts that mean that it is applicable only to itself. The next case will be different and those differences may mean an entirely different answer. And since nothing arises out of context, nothing can be determined beforehand about it.

<snip>

That is nonsense. The line may shift over time, but humans can determine right from wrong.

For example, when asked if genocide is right or wrong, the vast majority of people answer ‘wrong’.

The reason people often get confused is they make the situation too complicated (e.g., including such details as race), or have it made to appear more complicated than it really is by others. This is what you are doing with regards to circumcision. You are including details that are irrelevant, but emotionally divisive.

You also appear to have (at least partially) bought into the trendy (but self-contradictory) idea of moral relativism, LL. It isn't your fault. It was probably implanted in your brain without you even knowing it was happening. This appears to be a common malady for people who have to advocate for people whose behaviour they would otherwise not approve of, such as lawyers and physicians.

 

[Loss Leader]

That is nonsense. The line may shift over time, but humans can determine right from wrong.

Only in cases that are way over into one territory or another. In close cases, bright line rules do not work.

Circumcision is a good example. You and some others find it extremely distatesful - some even accuse me of mental illness for circumcizing my son. However, it's legal and the majority of people would probably agree that it should be allowed for religious reasons.

So, how can it be nonsense that there is no clear line? There is obviously no clear line; otherwise there would be no disagreement about circumcision.

Whether there is a trap called moral relativism or not, the fact is that my country operates with a modicum of respect for differing worldviews. Your distaste for the same does not change the fact that I am accurately describing western civilization.

For example, when asked if genocide is right or wrong, the vast majority of people answer ‘wrong’.

Wonderful. So, when something is very far away from the line is easy to discern which side of the line it's on. I believe I said that. The problem is in close cases where, like the first down marker projected onto the field on TV, the line stops making sense and fades away entirely.

 

[Oroborus]

Who cares? Your screen name is great. I loved Red Dwarf.

hah, that's not where I got it from at all. But holy crap you mean there were more than 3 of us that watched Red Dwarf? Awesome.

 

[Lonewulf]

I don't really understand why everyone is throwing around words like barbaric and cruel. It's not as if people circumcised at birth are plagued by nightmares of it for the rest of their life.

It physically mars them for life. It's like cutting someone and leaving a physical scar for the rest of their life. And then, is causing extensive pain meaninglessly to someone really justified if they end up forgetting about it?

I actually had it done to me when I was old enough to be able to remember it. It's a very painful memory for me. It's not something that I would sign another human being up for unless there were a darn good reason. "Because some invisible God might cause great harm to the jewish race" isn't enough for me, unless someone is willingly allow it happen to themselves. Making that decision for someone else that does not have your religious faith, however, seems innately wrong to me.

It comes down to personal choice, really. I think that the child has rights. Some people don't, or think that the parent's rights supersede the children's. I don't think that we'll ever come to a closure on this argument, really.

Personally, I think of babies as human beings, not as robots that will think whatever you program them to think.

 

[Oroborus]

I still don't see what all the outrage is on the anti-circumcision side of the fence. Would you be against parents having a large mole removed from off their infants face (for purely cosmetic reasons)? The point is unlesss someone points out to me why medically people should not be circumcised then it remains a matter of preference.



By the way imo bringing in hugely exaggerated ploys like genocide in comparison to circumcision is a pretty weak arguement.

 

[Oroborus]

It physically mars them for life. It's like cutting someone and leaving a physical scar for the rest of their life. And then, is causing extensive pain meaninglessly to someone really justified if they end up forgetting about it?

Do you really believe that anyone thats circumsized truely feels marred? That there are groups of circumsized men wandering about going woe is my foreskin! It is gone, gone!



That was of course meant if it was done at infancy, and no I dont believe any child old enough to have an opinion on the matter should be forced to be circumcised.

Edit: er hang on you just edited yours

 

[Lonewulf]

Do you really believe that anyone thats circumsized truely feels marred?

I do.

That there are groups of circumsized men wandering about going woe is my foreskin! It is gone, gone!

Indeed.

It is a temporary pain quickly forgotten. Really, it's a matter of taste.

I have yet to forget my experience.

So, I'll ask: It is okay if I torture you with non-lasting pain, as long as I can mind wipe you afterwards?

Oh, yeah, and mocking me isn't a good way to convince me of one thing or another. I don't care if you have seen Red Dwarf or not.

 

[Oroborus]

As I said you changed your post after I'd made my response, or more likely during. And I'll reiterate that no I dont believe it is right for a parents choice to be held over the childs, assuming the child is old enough to make one. (at least in this matter)

And let me rephrase, Do you really believe there are alot of people who are circumsized at infancy, who feel marred?

As for your question, that would really depend on when you asked it wouldn't it? During I'd probably say no, after *shrug*.

Also I apollogize for the mockery, it was uncalled for. P the red dwarf comment was directed more at loss leader)

 

[Lonewulf]

As I said you changed your post after I'd made my response, or more likely during. And I'll reiterate that no I dont believe it is right for a parents choice to be held over the childs, assuming the child is old enough to make one. (at least in this matter)

Right.

And let me rephrase, Do you really believe there are alot of people who are circumsized at infancy, who feel marred?

I invite you to see my signature, the quote by Thomas Paine.

As for your question, that would really depend on when you asked it wouldn't it? During I'd probably say no, after *shrug*.

Also I apollogize for the mockery, it was uncalled for. P the red dwarf comment was directed more at loss leader)

I know the red dwarf comment was directed at Loss Leader, I was just commenting.

apology accepted, btw.

 

[Oroborus]

lol what I've been trying to articulate in my bumbling fashion is that I do not agree that all people that've been circumcised necessairly feel one way or another about it. I for example do not feel that I've undergone a barbaric or cruel treatment, and really feel none the worse for wear. Nor am I a zealot steadfastly defending it. And no I'm not saying that that justifies the proceedure, just hoping some people would stop painting it black and white.

 

[pdw709]

I can't believe this thread has grown to 10 pages already!

I'm the guy who started it a week ago, and was subsequently referred to the "other circumcision thread". After spending the best part of a week reading all 30+ pages of that one I've returned to see that this one has mushroomed to 10 pages!

This really is one contentious topic