Banning circumsicion

[Anomalocaris]

We should ban infant ear piercing? It's a cosmetic also and causes pain.

When it comes down to it, it's the parents choice.

is it parent’s choice too if they wish to castrate their children?

we seem to be very self righteous without conceding any possibility of legitimacy of any differing views when condamning other culture’s female circumcising tradition, but when that is not their tradition but ours, it’s our damned choice god damn it!

[FrustratedFool]

We should ban infant ear piercing? It's a cosmetic also and causes pain.

When it comes down to it, it's the parents choice.

Piercing is temporary. But even then, yes, I think medically unjustified painful cosmetic procedures should require informed consent.

Would you be as accepting of me tattooing my infant son's face or penis as me piercing my infant daughters nose or ears? Why/why not?

[Nanny]

Would you be ok with me tattooing my child's penis as an infant if it likewise reduced his chance of having a treatable fungal infection?  It seems equivalent.  I suspect most would not, and that it is only the cultural acceptability of circumcision in certain locations which causes that inconsistency.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I agree that suffering from pain is to be avoided for the most part, and that suffering is always bad. Neither I nor my son suffered from the snip. 

To your last point, a parent would have to weigh the risks and benefits and decide for the child. That said, circumcision is a waning practice in western culture in large part because it is unnecessary medically and archaic. It stems from religious practice. It can be risky. It causes pain but usually no harm. 

The ear piercing example from brewer is a closer comparison on the suffering scale.

[FrustratedFool]

Thank you. And thank you too for being someone who can amicably disagree and dispassionately discuss an emotional issue.

I'm glad we can reach some agreement here:

Pain is generally to be avoided
Suffering is always bad
Parents should weight the risks and benefits
Circumcision is medically unnecessary
Circumcision can be risky
Circumcision causes pain

On all those we agree.

Can we also agree that:

Medical professionals only should perform the procedure
It should be done with pain relief treatment
Medical professionals should weigh up the risks and benefits
Religious motivations for medical procedures aren't suitable justification
Circumcision is a form of permanent cosmetic alteration

I hope so.

It seems likely, then, that where we disagree is on the following issues:
a) Medically unnecessary procedures shouldn't be undertaken without consent
b) Permanent cosmetic alterations shouldn't be undertaken without consent
c) Causing pain, risk, and permanent cosmetic alteration to a non-consenting other is a form of harm

[Nanny]

Pretty spot on, Fool. I disagree with point c. I would replace "causing pain...." causing suffering.

We haven't really discussed consent in this thread yet. I think that's a rich topic to explore. Cultures have definitions for when a child suddenly becomes able to consent. Life experience should tell us that a one-size-fits-all approach to consent is at best imperfect.

A lot of parenting is teaching kids how to make informed decisions, but kids - ahem 15 year old kids like mine - can be unpredictable, impulsive, incapable of clear risk calculations. Males exhibit riskier behaviors in adolescence and young adulthood. There's a reason Marine Privates are 18 years old!

How can consent ever be truly given by children? I'm thinking about stuff like having wisdom teeth extracted, for example. That's a common procedure for 18 years olds.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I regard all circumcision, male or female, as mutilation. My son is circumcised. His mother insisted and I hasn't the will to resist. Of course she refused to take him to the doctor for the procedure. I had to do that. For all some folk belittle the pain as forgettable, hearing my 3-day-old son scream in pain that day is burned into my brain.

It hurts the baby for little true benefit. I mean, we literally got along as a species for 200,000 years without this being a selection pressure in our evolution.

[FrustratedFool]

Pretty spot on, Fool. I disagree with point c. I would replace "causing pain...." causing suffering.

We haven't really discussed consent in this thread yet. I think that's a rich topic to explore. Cultures have definitions for when a child suddenly becomes able to consent. Life experience should tell us that a one-size-fits-all approach to consent is at best imperfect.

A lot of parenting is teaching kids how to make informed decisions, but kids - ahem 15 year old kids like mine - can be unpredictable, impulsive, incapable of clear risk calculations. Males exhibit riskier behaviors in adolescence and young adulthood. There's a reason Marine Privates are 18 years old!

How can consent ever be truly given by children? I'm thinking about stuff like having wisdom teeth extracted, for example. That's a common procedure for 18 years olds.

I agree that consent becomes messy after puberty. And there's careful legal and ethical thought gone into that.

But I think infants are a clear cut case. An infant cannot consent to anything.

[Nanny]

Right, but that means someone has to consent for them. That's the issue at hand here. It's muddy.

Some religions forbid blood transfusions, for example. It would seem inconsistent to suggest that a parent can decide whether Junior keeps his foreskin based on parental consent but would be left for dead if the parents refused consent a blood transfusion. That may be a subject for a different thread though.

[FrustratedFool]

But its a generally accepted principle to only allow parents to give medical consent on their infants behalf for necessary things, and subject to professional approval and oversight.

Again, would you like the state to allow cosmetic surgery or tattoos for infants?

There seems clearly obvious and ethically relevant differences between parents allowing a blood transfusion and parents electing for their child to have ritual scars or foot binding or FGM etc.

[Nanny]

Tattoos are a great example, sorry I missed that in your earlier post. Tattoos are permanent scarring of the body with little to no pain (I have tats) and very low physical risk, but what about the psychological impact of having the Little Mermaid tattooed on your forehead from a young age?

Who am I to say whether face tats are culturally appropriate? The Maori culture has a long tradition of tattoos but I'm ignorant about their cultural rules for the practice like when someone gets their first tat.

But what if someone wants the little mermaid tattooed on his child's face? I find that repugnant. Is that an absolute or is it cultural? Weird.