Religious Special Pleading

Nope. Your argument relied on a universal statement. I simply showed it was not universal. Since parents can harm children without harming themselves, one cannot say the two are harmed with equivalence and therefore you can't say that just because a parent consents it is not harmful. And I have not disagreed with this obvious point. It's not a relevant point, so I'm not sure why you place such importance on it in this discussion. You can't justify all actions a parent takes against a child by saying the harm is equivalent so the parent's consent is all that matters morally. The problem we have here is about knowledge of harm. If a parent doesn't know their actions are harmful - they won't feel any harm - even if they are wonderful people. But if the actions are harmful, the child is harmed regardless of the parent's state of knowledge. Thus they are not equivalent and one cannot simply say 'the parent's consent is sufficient' or argue something similar.Parental consent makes sense for cases where a decision must be made (and even then, it is not always the ultimate decider). So if an infection occurs and the Doctor says there are two options
1) Circumcise. Good chance of success of relieving the infection, but permanent bodily modification with it's own set of risks - the consequences of which can be lifelong.
2) Antibiotics. Also a good chance of success but if they fail the consequences can become increasingly severe, and antibiotics in the very young carry their own set of risks. However, on complete success there is little chance of long term problems and the child will grow up without having their body altered.At this point - it probably makes sense to seek parental consent as the child cannot consent and the parents are the next best advocate for the child's health etc.However, if the options are weighed heavily - eg., 90% chance of death if you don't circumcise - then the doctors may choose to overrule parents who decide to not circumcise through the courts.In cases where there is no compelling need to make a decision, I see no reason for the doctor to even entertain the notion - let alone seek parental consent. If a parent insists that their child be given a long term course of antibiotics - 'just in case' (ie as a prophylactic against infection rather than as a cure), it seems to me to be reasonable for a doctor to refuse. And any doctor that doesn't is probably doing more harm than good - regardless of the parent's wishes and consent.

Well in that case, the argument instantly fails. If I'm wrong, make whatever argument you are making in the form of Because parents are sometimes harmed when their child is harmed ....{your argument here}..... circumcision is either not harmful, or the harm is justifiable.Which is not true. It is only possibly true. There are cases where it isn't true. Which I did in the very post you are replying to. Good news. Hopefully we can both agree this is a ludicrous argument. I'm not sure how expressing my opinion and providing evidence and reason in support of that opinion, as well as the informed opinion of relevant professionals in a variety of fields --- and hoping those reasons and evidence are persuasive to others such that social policy changes could be characterised as dictating anything. We agree that
a) a child can't give an informed opinion on the matter
b) a parent doesn't know with certainty whether everything they do is harmful or not
c) a doctor can cause harm, unwittingly or deliberately.So although their opinions may have merit in a discussion - they aren't the final word. A doctor who persuades a parent into consenting to have a child's ears amputated is still causing a harm - even if the child is lead to believe they aren't harmed and the parent also holds that belief. Obviously, I'm not asking the doctor to seek my consent. I'm busy enough as it is - I don't need to add reviewing every doctors' actions to it.I am however, advising why consent by proxy makes sense at times of need, but why I do not think it does for cosmetic purposes. And indeed, in every single other case of cosmetic surgery - everybody else seems to agree with me on this. Circumcision seems to have carved out (ahem) for itself an exception...and this largely seems to continue today because being uncool to Jews is a big problem. If it was just Muslims - I'm sure the practice would have been banned in the US alongside its female counterpart.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Are you sure? The practice panned in the 80s - my understanding - based up on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the UK, Moira Dustin, LSE GENDER INSTITUTE, 2010 (see page 8) is that the issue hadn't come to legislation due to a lack of public awareness and once the awareness came to light the delay in passing legislation was due to making sure the legal language was both tight enough to ensure it was effective, while also allowing for legitimate female circumcision to take place:

quote:

---

Thedelayinpassingthe1985Actwascausedbydisagreementovertwo
sentences, one referring to ‘mental health’, the other to ‘custom or ritual’,
and the relationship between the two. The Bill as originally introduced
said that the operation of female circumcision must not be performed
except where necessary for the physical health of the patient. This recog-
nized that there are cancerous, pre-cancerous and other conditions that
necessitate genital surgery and that the legislation needed to be defined
tightlyenoughtoallowthoseoperationstobecarriedoutlegally.However,
Lord Glenarthur for the (Conservative) government, was concerned that
‘There are operations of what might be called a cosmetic nature, which
may properly be undertaken but which are not required for the direct
physical health of the woman’, which would not be permitted under the
original terms of the legislation. Therefore, the Bill would only have
the government’s blessing if it were amended to allow surgery where
necessary for the physical or mental health of a person; in determining,
however, whether there was a threat to physical or mental health, no
account should be taken of beliefs based on ritual or custom (Prohibition
of Female Circumcision HL Bill, 10 November 1983 and 23 January 1984).

---

The 'cultural sensitivity' charge is usually laid against the notion that there has been an unwillingness to detect and/or prosecute cases for that reason.{The article above raises an interesting point regarding the hypocrisy of the law which suggests that a western girl who is suffering mental anguish at the state of her labia as a result of cultural pressures to confirm more closely to the 'ideal' genital shape could opt to have genital surgery for mental health reasons - but someone who has also expressed mental anguish at their labia for cultural reasons (but from a different culture) may be prohibited - and (in principle) anybody aiding them could be prosecuted}That law had a large loophole allowing people to go overseas to have the operation - meaning prosecution was more or less impossible without direct evidence that the practice occurred on British soil (and few children of that background were ever likely to stand as witness against their family). This was corrected in 2003 (and it passed without a problem in the house).{again the article raises an interesting point:

quote:

---

the 2003 Act distinguishes between the illegal reinfibulation
after childbirth of an adult woman of African origin, regardless of her
own wishes, while permitting British women to have surgery to create
‘designer vaginas’.

---

It concludes:

quote:

---

One way would be to argue for the application of consistent principles
of choice and the recognition of all non-therapeutic bodily modifications
as ‘cultural’. This could mean making a distinction between adults who
can choose how to modify their bodies in irreversible ways — however
muchthemajoritymightdeploretheirchoices—andchildrenwhocannot.
Application of this framework would have several implications. It would
mean saying that male circumcision of boy babies, where it has been
established that it has no medical benefits, is unacceptable; it would mean
that it would be illegal to circumcise a girl under the age of consent; and
it would mean that if an adult woman wants to have her genitals ‘tidied
up’ after childbirth or her labia reduced through ‘cosmetic’ surgery, then
she should be allowed to make that choice. This may not be a satisfactory
position but it is a way of avoiding double standards while the real work
of changing the attitudes that produce these practices takes place.

---

So while there may be a reticence to prosecute or detect the practice there are1) Actual cultural sensitivity issues surrounding the law
2) Actual difficulties detecting the issue in children and securing prosecution when all parties are cooperating with one another against the prosecution. (And as the case you highlighted earlier demonstrates, even when this isn't the case, a successful conviction is not certain as proving criminal responsibility is still difficult in a he said-she said case).

Which is what I said:

quote:

---

The 'cultural sensitivity' charge is usually laid against the notion that there has been an unwillingness to detect and/or prosecute cases for that reason.

---

The 'are you sure' was about banning the practice - which was done in the 80s and I'm not aware that there was any problem banning the practice due to cultural sensitivity issues per se.

So you can't construct such an argument? I'm not arguing what you claim I am, and have indeed already said as much. In fact my argument is that everybody should be allowed the right to make their decision - not have it made for them while they are not in a position to consent. The only exception to this rule should be if there is a pressing medical need to do so (ie., delaying for 18 years (or whatever) is likely to result in a greater risk of death or injury than not delaying).Your counter-argument went along these lines:

quote:

---

Murder is harmful to the victim, to his loved ones, even to society as a whole. I'm not banned from murdering because it's harmful to me.

---

quote:

---

What I'm against is the government telling me not to harm myself.

---

When it was pointed out that the circumcision in debate was done to other people - not to one's self you elaborated:

quote:

---

In the case of somebody who can not give consent, "myself' refers to somebody who can. Harming a child is equivalent to harming the parent.

---

The counter argument being - they are not equivalent. There are a whole bunch of things you are not allowed to give consent by proxy for (and things you can't even consent for yourself but that's another story). You can't argue as if banning parental consent by proxy for action x is the same as banning action x on a consenting individual. They aren't. Since you insist you aren't making a universal claim, it is necessarily true therefore that they aren't the same thing. This part of your argument therefore should be abandoned or shored up with further argumentation - which you have declined to provide.

And I agree that harming a child can be said in general to cause harm to the parent - assuming the parent is aware of the harm. My contention is that this does not help us in determining whether a child is harmed and thus whether the practice should be permitted.

And if it was certain that it was going to be harmful in all cases, would you change your mind?To reiterate - I am saying we should not infringe on individual rights. The rights of the child. I'm saying a child's right to bodily integrity outweighs a parent's right to impose cosmetic surgery on them.

You did it earlier is this thread, here are some examples of you doing this:

quote:

---

Murder is harmful to the victim

---

quote:

---

The same applies to Child Labour, Child Sexual Abuse, Infanticide, Child Neglect, Giving addictive recreational drugs to children and Corporal punishment.

---

quote:

---

Slavery was banned because it was harmful to the slaves.

---

etc. A child's right to bodily integrity should outweigh the parent's right to perform cosmetic surgery on the child. A child's right to life doesn't necessarily outweigh a parent's right to life. A child's right to privacy should not outweigh a parent's obligations to protect the child. Except in every case other than male circumcision, the child's right to bodily integrity does outweigh the parent's right to perform cosmetic surgery on them. And for good reason.

I'm not doing anything differently. I'm trying to adjust the consensus through discussion. Question: Was slavery only harmful after the consensus agreed it was? How is it special pleading? It's the same principle I use in the case of cutting off any other part of a child.

For any given definition of harm - whether something meets the criteria is either true or false, unless the definition is woolly, is pretty absolute. This may reference objective and subjective criteria - so certainty may not be perfect, but it is either harmful or not.For instance, smoking tobacco was as harmful in 1920 as it will be in 2020. It makes no difference if doctors were prescribing cigarettes in the twenties and everyone thought they were swell. Their harm remains the same - they reduce life expectancy by increasing risk of heart disease, cancers, bronchial conditions etc etc. That's just descriptive though. Obviously that's what happens. Who would think otherwise?Also - we're concerned here about harm to individuals, not necessarily to society. But yes, at some point society decides to deal with things. The central theme here is that even at the point when society has determined harm is being done (and that it always has been done) religion can often get a 'get out of jail free card' where non-religious people do not.Some examples:1) A parent's child is ill. The treatment is trivial, low risk and almost always works. The parent's don't seek treatment, but pray to their God. In some areas of the USA they may not be prosecuted if the child dies - and even if they are prosecuted, their God belief is an accepted defence. But if someone were to do that because they were busy with work, or because they don't like their kid or because any reason other than God - prosecution would likely follow and those reasons are not acceptable defence or in many cases even mitigation.2) We, as a society, have determined that it is harmful to society as a whole for public accommodations to refuse minority groups service because they are part of that minority group. There are those who are fighting to have 'but my God tells me to' to be a reason to ignore this requirement. Historically it was seen as a compelling defence, but thankfully it's becoming less and less tenable.So imagine, during the height of the American slave trade, a debate. one person stands up and says,'Slavery is harmful to the enslaved. It reduces their life expectancy, degrades their humanity, breeds misery etc etc etc'The retort comes'But most members of society disagree that it is harmful'Would you regard the retort as compelling? Useful? Does it mean anything? Is it relevant to the discussion about what we, as a society should be doing? Does it prove, in any way that actually matters, that slavery is not harmful to the enslaved?Likewise, in a debate about smoking would 'But many doctors not only think it is OK, but think it is actually healthy' be a statement that determines whether or not smoking is actually harmful? Or is it just a statement about what many doctors think about the harm? Yes. Bodily integrity is not compromised significantly in the case of nails and hair usually as they grow back. I would object strongly, to permanent alterations to hair and nail growth performed on children for mere cosmetic purposes. There is little to object to in the case of neonatal infants - especially for nails - which can cause injury if not attended to, so its not even purely non-therapuetic. However, cutting an older child's hair without their consent in a manner they strongly object to - for instance shaving 'I am an ugly boy' would be something I could object to.And I think we can all agree that damaging blood vessels, skin and nerves is more a violation of bodily integrity than hair or nails.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Yes, that's the point. What people who commit an act, or society as a whole consider harmful is immaterial to whether it is in fact harmful. And I'd like to persuade people that it is harmful and that 'but it's my religion' is not a suitable excuse for committing that harm.

This isn't contrary to my position at all. Weighing conflicting interests is a social process. Whether or not harm is done - particularly physical harm - is not dictated by opinion.You missed of course another issue which is the individual freedom to not be circumcised, which neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision robs people of. So we're weighing a parent's freedom to slice other people's genitals vs the freedom to not have one's genitals sliced. Sure - that's a socially derived opinion. But whether cutting skin off or smoking causes damage or is harmful is less about opinion. Well indeed. Individual freedoms. I am saying the individual should be free to choose - not have it chosen for them - except where medically necessary.

It is. It really is. A child is a person, and they are seldom their own parent. Which we both support. And we both agree there are and should be limits to that freedom. We even agree, I'm sure, that deciding to cut a child resulting in scarring them goes beyond those limits in almost all cases that are not medically required goes beyond the freedoms we should grant parents.

Immaterial to the point that we're weighing a parent's freedom to slice other people's genitals vs the freedom to not have one's genitals sliced. I didn't mention the word independent there. Circumcision. I didn't say we agreed on all cases. Unless you think scarring a child's face, arms, legs, etc by removing skin from them for no medical purpose should be something parents are free to do. It's certainly not something they currently are free to do.

But this is not a universal rule. For surgical type procedures it's only on the parent's side in the case of circumcision and medical needs. Otherwise the law states the decision should be stalled until the child reaches an age where they are capable of making a decision. This applies to (legal) recreational drugs, sex, performing military service, cosmetic surgery, labour... Hence the special pleading theme of this thread. Prohibition of sex with 15 year olds is too. Law is part of our culture. This of course puts you in disagreement with yourself:

quote:

---

I think the job of our institutions is to follow the public will

---

quote:

---

Our institutions and our parents don't agree with you about what is "harmful".

---

quote:

---

I'm the one who agrees with the current laws

---

quote:

---

No. You're advocating that the minority...should be allowed to impose their view on the majority

---

quote:

---

Your "points" fly in the face of medical practice

---

In any case I think allowing a person to choose scarification is less oppressive than preventing people from imposing it on those that cannot voice an opinion on the matter.

quote:

---

It should be the

---

I can guess where this is going but I'm not going to, I assume however it was just intended as emphasis on the previous sentence.In conclusion, since there doesn't seem to be any advance in the discussion - a parent - or someone else such a spouse or someone with power of attorney - may be allowed to consent by proxy on certain things - things it has been demonstrated empirically are timely in nature - medical procedures such as heart surgery, provision of certain risky medications, education...where delays can be seen to cause significant harm to the individual who is incapable of making a decision be they children or otherwise incapacitated. But this fails as a justification for allowing universal powers to consent to all possible activities that would normally require consent. And thus you can't argue 'parents can give consent for circumcision therefore it is morally justifiable'.The best argument, indeed your only good one, is related to religious persecution. I expect however, you would not agree to banning circumcision unless there is a religious reason. And if you were to agree with that you would necessarily be arguing for religious special pleading.I should point out that there are religious/cultural practices that are banned and I suspect you agree, to some extent, with those bans. Lets list some:a) stoning adulterers, homosexuals and those that work on the Sabbath b) slavery / indentured servitude
c) Flogging adulterers and unbelievers
d) removing the hands of thieves
e) human sacrifice (what if the victim consents? What if they were 'brainwashed' all their life into that consent?)
f) beating children with rods
g) Declining to employ people of the 'wrong' religion.
h) Marrying children off and the consummation thereof
i) Footbinding
j) Beating one's spouseIs this also racial oppression?