Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[moocowmoo]

The father is within his rights to have his son circumcised and while it is indeed "Genital surgery" it is still considered perfectly valid to have done.

Why is it "perfectly valid" to cut off part of the genitals of a healthy three year old boy? As he is no longer a mute infant, and since it is an elective and cosmetic surgery, where is his right to elect out, especially considering his mother does not want it done?

[Yoink]

Yeah, Neo, the "injustice" is that the procedure's being done in the first place.

[Neonivek]

Yeah, Neo, the "injustice" is that the procedure's being done in the first place.

Why is it "perfectly valid" to cut off part of the genitals of a healthy three year old boy?

So then the your position is simply that circumcision should be illegal period.

Then the article could have simply been written as "Child circumcised".

 

especially considering his mother does not want it done?

If he has the ability to have him circumcised without her input, then she clearly has lost those kinds of rights to her child either by giving them up, having it be part of the settlement, or them being taken away from her.

She has no input nor does she deserve more input legally.

where is his right to elect out

They don't have that yet. A Child of that age doesn't have the right to refuse medicine. As well asking a child to chose at 3 (an age some children cannot even speak properly yet) is not going to give you insight.

[Redzephyr01]

The father is within his rights to have his son circumcised and while it is indeed "Genital surgery" it is still considered perfectly valid to have done.

Why is it "perfectly valid" to cut off part of the genitals of a healthy three year old boy? As he is no longer a mute infant, and since it is an elective and cosmetic surgery, where is his right to elect out, especially considering his mother does not want it done?

^

[Neonivek]

To sum up Redzephyr.

Because circumcision is still legal, 3 years old is still a valid age, 3 year olds do not have the right to refuse, and the mother has absolutely no input (as well she is likely directly responsible for the child being 3 years old at the time of circumcision)

Can we have an objection that doesn't boil down to: "Circumcision itself is wrong"?

[Owlbread]

I will never understand the "merits" for child genital mutilation (and actively oppose it and all those who promote it, I am glad that it is uncommon in the UK) unless there's a medical necessity but, as people have correctly pointed out here, this story is more about manufacturing outrage than anything else.

There's far more to the story than first meets the eye and the fact that there's some kind of legal agreement makes it pretty much impossible for the mother to do anything about it. I don't see why the father would see this as something so important that it would require a legal battle anyway unless he has religious reasons. Unless he sees this issue as something he needs to fight the mother over in order to secure his place as the boy's father, but I think this is a bit of a strange thing to be fighting for - you know, "you secure your place as the father of your son" by ensuring that his foreskin is removed. I'd maybe just leave the boy be to avoid a court battle with the mother (even if she loses) and wait until something more... meaningful comes along.

[misko27]

Yeah, Neo, the "injustice" is that the procedure's being done in the first place.

Why is it "perfectly valid" to cut off part of the genitals of a healthy three year old boy?

So then the your position is simply that circumcision should be illegal period.

Then the article could have simply been written as "Child circumcised".

This thread could be called that.

Well legally speaking all seems to be in order. And if you didn't like circumcision before, this changes nothing. And if you did like it, this still does nothing.

[moocowmoo]

They don't have that yet. A Child of that age doesn't have the right to refuse medicine. As well asking a child to chose at 3 (an age some children cannot even speak properly yet) is not going to give you insight.

Medicine? To treat what exactly?

[Yoink]

Can we have an objection that doesn't boil down to: "Circumcision itself is wrong"?

Why would you need a better objection than that, though?

[Neonivek]

It is very likely religious reasons.

As for it being odd for the Mother to be in this situation... You are right, mostly because mothers TEND to be given rights over their children over men (Even in cases they shouldn't be, though that is becoming further from the norm everyday).

But to me gender doesn't play into this at all. One spouse has the right to circumcise their son and the other doesn't. She isn't arguing in court that she should have the right to stop it, but rather that he shouldn't have the right to do it.

Medicine? To treat what exactly?

Medicine doesn't have to treat anything.

Why would you need a better objection than that, though?

Cause then the entire article and the entire thread is utterly and irrevocably pointless... because it isn't about what rights parents, even separated, should have over their children. It isn't about picking out what is likely unsaid in the article, about the way the article is presented, or even about court delays...

It isn't about anything but the word Circumcision.

[Redzephyr01]

Circumcision has a complication rate of 10%. That's far beyond the margin of acceptable error for a surgery with literally no proven benefits.

[Neonivek]

Circumcision has a complication rate of 10%. That's far beyond the margin of acceptable error for a surgery with literally no proven benefits.

Ohh don't get me wrong... I don't think circumcision is exactly right.

But I live in a country where they will let a child die over defying the wishes of their parents. So this is rather low on my scale of outrage.

[misko27]

I think the point Neonivek is making is that this article isn't exactly a landmark event. The legal basis for the use of circumcision on children is completely unchanged.

A way to put it is Morals vs. Ethics. Morally you make think this is wrong. But ethically it's legit. Parent's can have plastic surgery on their children, circumcision falls well within that legal purview, especially with a religious factor.. You may not think it's right, but it is legal.

Circumcision has a complication rate of 10%. That's far beyond the margin of acceptable error for a surgery with literally no proven benefits.

I'm not aware cosmetic surgery in general has any tangible benefits, but you can get that, and on your children too.

[moocowmoo]

I'm not aware cosmetic surgery in general has any tangible benefits, but you can get that, and on your children too.

What other cosmetic surgery are parents allowed to do to their children? I mean in absence of physical abnormality that is being corrected.

[Neonivek]

Breast enlargement surgery

At least from what little research I have done.