k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com wrote:

Rupert wrote:

It's a violation of human rights to cut a child's genitals when he or
she isn't old enough to consent. Let them decide the matter for
themselves when they're old enough.

Come now. We make all sorts of decisions for children before they're
old enough to make those decisions for themselves. We don't always
make the right decision, and in some cases there may not exist a
"right" decision, but there are plenty of decisions that we _need_
to make for them.

Yes, if you needed to perform some sort of medical intervention to save
the child's life, that would be justified. However, the alleged
benefits to circumcision are minor and there is no consensus about
whether they exist at all. In that situation, the right to bodily
integrity wins.

Did you read my first post? It isn't _that_ long. There is no
reasonable doubt about the benefits of circumcision. That cuts off your
argument at the start.

Yes, there is, and this is irrelevant to my argument.

Taking no position on the actual topic here, but your argument
seems silly, or at the very least vastly oversimplified.

Well, I'm sorry it seems that way to you. It doesn't seem that way to
me. I don't think we have the right to decide on a child's behalf that
his or her genitals should be cut in a way that permanently alters
their appearance while he or she is still a baby. Yes, we do have the
right to decide some things on our children's behalf, but not to cut
their genitals. And I would still think this even if I accepted that it
could be proved that there are significant benefits to circumcision.

Why? Do you worship at the Church of the Uncut *****?

Straw man. I am not advocating one decision or the other for anyone. It
is up to everyone to decide when they are old enough.

Why is 'cutting their genitals' inherently wrong, even if no objective
harms can be shown?

Because they are not old enough to consent, and people have the right
to decide whether their genitals shall be cut or not. It is not for you
to make that decision for them.

Note that some advocates of female genital cutting argue that the
practice gives their female children the benefit of being integrated
into and accepted by the society they live in. In some of those
societies, a girl who can't find a husband could have some real
problems.

... which is why circumcision advocates generally don't use that
argument as a justification. Any social custom, no matter how bad,
could be inserted there.

To justify cutting a child's genitals,
exactly what sort of benefits do we need to prove do occur, what sort
of harms to we need to prove will not occur? And do we have to prove
that harms will never occur at all, or is it acceptable if they occur
one time in a million?

Everything has non-zero risk. You would not demand such an absurdly
high standard as that that you are implying here for anything else in
life, would you? If you use it just for circumcision, then it is
plainly not really an argument, but an excuse.

I'm saying individuals have the right to decide what risks they want to
bear and what benefits they want to seek. We might be in a situation
where we cannot avoid making a risky decision on behalf of our child.
That is not the case with circumcision. The benefits and risks of
either decision are not such that we are justified in taking the
decision on behalf of the child. The child has the right to bodily
integrity. It can decide for itself when it is old enough.

... it certainly does seem reasonably clear that some
adult males feel that they would prefer not to have been circumcised,
and that their rights have been violated. Is that an acceptable cost
for obtaining whatever benefits we claim are obtained by circumcision?

Yes, some men 'feel' that way; no doubt almost all of these do so only
after exposure to anti-circ propaganda.

I don't think you have any reasonable way of knowing that. That's just
a totally uneducated guess on your part.

In any case, how is this any
sort of argument? There are also men that would prefer to have been
circumcised that weren't.

And they can get circumcised. Problem solved.

I doubt they feel as strongly about the matter, anyway.

There is more substance to a complaint against your parents for cutting
your genitals without your consent than for refraining to do so because
you weren't old enough to express an opinion on the matter. When there
is disagreement about the benefits and risks, the presumption is in
favour of respecting bodily integrity.

Why is only the one that agrees with your
position merit consideration?

Circumcision may be the greatest thing since sliced bread for all I
know, all I know is I don't think being uncircumcised has done me any
harm and I don't accept that anyone would have had the right to decide
the issue for me while I was a baby.

OK. But I know that being circumcised hasn't done me any harm!

Good. So stop advocating that people do it to babies without their
consent and let people decide for themselves. If, as you claim, the
evidence in favour of circumcision is so overwhelming, then people will
be persuaded by it and get circumcised when they are older, thereby
obtaining the benefits you claim this practice has.

Andrew Usher

Did you read my first post? It isn't _that_ long. There is no
reasonable doubt about the benefits of circumcision. That cuts off your
argument at the start.

Yes, there is, and this is irrelevant to my argument.

Why is 'cutting their genitals' inherently wrong, even if no objective
harms can be shown?

Because they are not old enough to consent, and people have the right
to decide whether their genitals shall be cut or not. It is not for you
to make that decision for them.

Everything has non-zero risk. You would not demand such an absurdly
high standard as that that you are implying here for anything else in
life, would you? If you use it just for circumcision, then it is
plainly not really an argument, but an excuse.

I'm saying individuals have the right to decide what risks they want to
bear and what benefits they want to seek. We might be in a situation
where we cannot avoid making a risky decision on behalf of our child.

That is not the case with circumcision. The benefits and risks of
either decision are not such that we are justified in taking the
decision on behalf of the child.