Circumcision may be illegal - Aust Law Insitute

[Jason]

If circumcision is deemed illegal, would parents forcing a kid to wear braces to make his teeth look better (also cosmetic) also be illegal ?

.................

Could the child sue parents for having had them immunized against a disease, depriving them of the right to have that disease ?

The argument against infant circumcision is not that it is a cosmetic practice, but that it is damaging and irreversible. Braces on teeth would not be perceived as damaging, and for that matter I guess not irreversible. That said there may well be issues about forcing a child to wear a brace - children do have rights!

Immunisation as recommended by the NHS (in the UK) is considered beneficial rather than damaging, and is strongly encouraged (for example it may be a requirement for the child to go to a state school). However if something goes wrong with immunisation the child (on becoming an adult) or an adult for the child can sue whoever did the immunisation.

The key concepts are damaging and irreversible. I know it is possible to argue about both, but this is the emerging view in all 28 EU countries.

 

[darkbond007]

I got a question, want to see a few responses. The title of the thread is "Circumcision may be illegal" We all know this will never happen.

For some people it is a choice, my question is regarding adult circumcision, if someone just flat out wants to be circumcised whether its for medical or cosmetic, rational or irrational reason, why should you care?

The moral issue that plagues RIC is gone, there is no evidence that proves its damaging in a sexual sensation regard and the person just wants it to be? What is the problem with this?

 

[B_dxjnorto]

We all know this will never happen. <snip> The moral issue that plagues RIC is gone [?!]

Change often makes accepted customs into crimes. ~ Mason Cooley (b. 1927), U.S. aphorist

 

[darkbond007]

Change often makes accepted customs into crimes. ~ Mason Cooley (b. 1927), U.S. aphorist

That does not answer my question and takes it completely out of context. If we go by what you say then people who chose to be circumcised should be imprisoned?

 

[B_dxjnorto]

That does not answer my question and takes it completely out of context. If we go by what you say then people who chose to be circumcised should be imprisoned?

Please don't make yourself appear to be uninformed. You are not unintelligent, but for whatever reasons of your own, you are more interested in being right than you are in understanding what is right.

You know rich people don't go to prison. First doctors will suffer the loss of their little RIC stimulus package. The suffering of the infants they abuse has not stopped most of them, but there have already been successful lawsuits. How this works is as the number of claims increases, malpractice protection will wane. Then the number of doctors willing to perform unnecessary surgery on infants will decrease.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

 

[darkbond007]

Please don't make yourself appear to be uninformed. You are not unintelligent, but for whatever reasons of your own, you are more interested in being right than you are in understanding what is right.

You know rich people don't go to prison. First doctors will suffer the loss of their little RIC stimulus package. The suffering of the infants they abuse has not stopped most of them, but there have already been successful lawsuits. How this works is as the number of claims increases, malpractice protection will wane. Then the number of doctors willing to perform unnecessary surgery on infants will decrease.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Again, my question has NOTHING to do with RIC. Read my question again and reply or leave it for someone else who has the balls to reply.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Again, my question has NOTHING to do with RIC. Read my question again and reply or leave it for someone else who has the balls to reply.

Balls, balls, balls. Well, I've got balls, so I guess you want me to answer. The answer is a question. Will you please stop conflating RIC and adult circumcision?

 

[darkbond007]

Balls, balls, balls. Well, I've got balls, so I guess you want me to answer. The answer is a question. Will you please stop conflating RIC and adult circumcision?

I am not putting them both together. Thats what appears to be happening here. The title says circumcision, seems like all circumcision. I am asking a question regarding adult circumcision.

It's an easy argument for you guys to pull on the heartstings of people regarding RIC. It's like pushing a starving child from a poor country in the front of people at a buffet.

I am trying to separate the two because when you guys debate on it it almost seems like you want it all to be gone.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

It's an easy argument for you guys to pull on the heartstings of people regarding RIC. It's like pushing a starving child from a poor country in the front of people at a buffet.

I am trying to separate the two because when you guys debate on it it almost seems like you want it all to be gone.

When you say stupid things like your sentence above, then I want it all to be gone. When it is self-aggrandizing (like brianincny's thread), self-deluding (like many of your posts), culturally coerced (like ninety-nine percent in the U.S.) and fetishist (like many of thickjohnny's posts) then I want it to be gone.

If you have a medical problem you must understand that your situation is different, just as if you had a gall bladder removed it is not a cause for celebrating and glad-handing. It is regrettable.

 

[B_Morning_Glory]

Again, my question has NOTHING to do with RIC. Read my question again and reply or leave it for someone else who has the balls to reply.

he cant answer your question darkbond he don't know how. all he knows is from some link or something he has dreamed up in his foreskin fetish mind.

 

[darkbond007]

When you say stupid things like your sentence above, then I want it all to be gone. When it is self-aggrandizing (like brianincny's thread), self-deluding (like many of your posts), culturally coerced (like ninety-nine percent in the U.S.) and fetishist (like many of thickjohnny's posts) then I want it to be gone.

If you have a medical problem you must understand that your situation is different, just as if you had a gall bladder removed it is not a cause for celebrating and glad-handing. It is regrettable.

It is NOT AT ALL regrettable when I am happy...when I dont miss my foreskin...when I dont believe the BS people like you spill out into the streets about this.

There is no difference in my situation and someone who decides to get circumcised because he just wants to.

I have no regrets, and you do not have the right to go out there and make people feel regretful over their choice. Fact still remains, if someone decides on their own to be cut then it's their choice...what's it to you?

 

[B_dxjnorto]

what's it to you?

I dislike misinformation.

 

[darkbond007]

I dislike misinformation.

Me too.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Me too.

Look at the company you keep in these threads. You're not honest. What other appendages can be partially amputated without making a difference? What is your motivation in saying there is no difference? You've got some kind of an agenda here. You'll say I do too, which is true. My agenda is to see normal genitalia protected from harm by parents and medical caregivers.

 

[darkbond007]

Look at the company you keep in these threads.

I don't keep any company, however I can say the same for you on any given thread.

You're not honest.

And now you are going to tell me that I lie about me feeling no sexual pleasure difference?

What other appendages can be partially amputated without making a difference?

That's not a rational way of thinking. Sexual pleasure is derived from the brain. The thing you miss with your correlation is that you are trying to equate any and all other appendages to frankly a rather unique appendage. You have no evidence to support your claim but you rush out with faulty logic that anyone who didnt know better would just fall in line with you. You use a morality argument to gather the uncuts and demean the cuts. Your irresponsible if you ask me.

What is your motivation in saying there is no difference?

There is no motivation, it's a statement used to bring out the truth.

You've got some kind of an agenda here.

I don't. There just seems to be this notion by a handful of people that basically log into CIRP every day and decide to immigrate their filth onto these boards. Every little single piece of news that you can use towards your war mongering effort trickles over here. It insights a bad taste, its like living in the Bush administration and every second there is a terror threat. You should work for Fox News.

You'll say I do too, which is true. My agenda is to see normal genitalia protected from harm by parents and medical caregivers.

At least you admit it.

So lets say you succeed. No kid is circumcised at birth. But the kid grows up and just so happens to like the look of a circumcised penis...what will you say to him then? Is it not his choice?

Stop skirting around my question...I'm bringing it back...

 

[B_dxjnorto]

There is no difference in my situation and someone who decides to get circumcised because he just wants to.

If you said it has made no difference to you sensationally and functionally, I would be skeptical (you appear to be tightly cut), but I would be able to keep my mouth shut. But you say it makes no difference for everyone. It is not possible for you to make this generalization true. This is harmful and ingenuous misinformation. I personally know men who have been harmed by this misinformation and the practice of RIC rests on it. As a victim of RIC, I have been harmed by this misinformation.

Nobody (but you) is inferring that fully informed adults should be legally prevented from seeking circumcision. But as Ron Low has said, perhaps a psychological evaluation is in order. What if you said, "I just want my gall bladder out," when there was nothing wrong with you? And why would a doctor want to expose himself or herself to liability? I mean, doctors do all kinds of weird shit. That a doctor would perform an unnecessary surgery is no indication that it is a neutral procedure. Doctors need to answer to law, since circ was grandfathered in before the age of science. Obviously not much has changed in the way of circ since prehistory. Therefore change is imminent.

I don't know why you think change is out of order. I'm beginning to think that you have some profound lack of ability to empathize. To view others as unique. To keep from externalizing your experience as universal. There's just something wrong in your presentation.

 

[Witlof]

darkbond007
As the initiator of the thread, can I just respond to your concern about confusing RIC and all circumcision. I put "circumcision" in the title because I was trying to keep it to a manageable length. I also put "Aust" in the title, even though that's inaccurate, because it's actually the Tasmanian Law Institute, not the Australian Law Institute. But I figured some people may not know much about Tasmania so I'd just refer to Australia. Anyway, when I said "circumcision" in the title, I meant it as a shorthand for childhood circumcision where the boy has not consented.
If you read the research paper, which I encourage everyone to do, you will see that it's remarkably balanced. It mostly looks at the law of consent. There is no doubt that a voluntary circumcision on an adult male in Australia would be completely legal (on a woman it would not be). The two questions from a legal point of view are (a) what degree of physical harm can a person consent to and (b) what degree of consent can a parent give in respect of a child.
I can only speak for Australia, but I suspect most of the world is similar. An adult can consent to many types of physical harm, for example, being punched in a boxing match, or having a serious operation. But in most countries, a person cannot consent to being killed. There is a line between the two and there are questions about where it is, and where it should be, drawn. Female genital mutilation has been ruled by many countries to be over the line, meaning consent is not enough. The second question is what parents can consent to on behalf of their children. It's probably because of changing social views on this question that the issue of RIC arises. Once upon a time, parents were considered to know best in all cases and whatever they said went. Now there is a greater acceptance of the rights of the child. There is a greater tendency to remove children from abusive parents, to allow children religious freedoms etc. Should a parent be allowed to consent to an operation that most people consider unnecessary and that many people consider causes irreparable harm? Threads like this one show that there are very different opinions on that question. But people are entitled to know what the law is. And the point of the Law Institute paper is that right now, at least in Tasmania, we just don't what the legal position is. We don't know if doctors/rabbis etc might be breaking the law for performing a RIC. We don't know if a lawsuit by a child who was circumcised at birth against a doctor (or parent, but that's unlikely I would have thought) would succeed. That puts everyone in a difficult position. A parent whose religious views require them to have their son circumcised but who doesn't want to break the law (or incur a civil liability) is in a bind - they shouldn't be. They should know what the law says. It's hard to disagee witht that.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Female genital mutilation has been ruled by many countries to be over the line, meaning consent is not enough.

Similarities in Attitudes and Misconceptions toward Infant Male Circumcision in North America and Ritual Female Genital Mutilation in Africa

 

[darkbond007]

If you said it has made no difference to you sensationally and functionally, I would be skeptical (you appear to be tightly cut), but I would be able to keep my mouth shut. But you say it makes no difference for everyone. It is not possible for you to make this generalization true. This is harmful and ingenuous misinformation. I personally know men who have been harmed by this misinformation and the practice of RIC rests on it. As a victim of RIC, I have been harmed by this misinformation.

Nobody (but you) is inferring that fully informed adults should be legally prevented from seeking circumcision. But as Ron Low has said, perhaps a psychological evaluation is in order. What if you said, "I just want my gall bladder out," when there was nothing wrong with you? And why would a doctor want to expose himself or herself to liability? I mean, doctors do all kinds of weird shit. That a doctor would perform an unnecessary surgery is no indication that it is a neutral procedure. Doctors need to answer to law, since circ was grandfathered in before the age of science. Obviously not much has changed in the way of circ since prehistory. Therefore change is imminent.

I don't know why you think change is out of order. I'm beginning to think that you have some profound lack of ability to empathize. To view others as unique. To keep from externalizing your experience as universal. There's just something wrong in your presentation.

Again. I am not talking about RIC...I am not saying it makes no difference for everyone. I am not arguing for RIC. I am trying to distinguish between what I know 100% which is adult circumcision.

There is nothing wrong with my presentation there is something wrong with your reading skills.

 

[darkbond007]

darkbond007
As the initiator of the thread, can I just respond to your concern about confusing RIC and all circumcision. I put "circumcision" in the title because I was trying to keep it to a manageable length. I also put "Aust" in the title, even though that's inaccurate, because it's actually the Tasmanian Law Institute, not the Australian Law Institute. But I figured some people may not know much about Tasmania so I'd just refer to Australia. Anyway, when I said "circumcision" in the title, I meant it as a shorthand for childhood circumcision where the boy has not consented.
If you read the research paper, which I encourage everyone to do, you will see that it's remarkably balanced. It mostly looks at the law of consent. There is no doubt that a voluntary circumcision on an adult male in Australia would be completely legal (on a woman it would not be). The two questions from a legal point of view are (a) what degree of physical harm can a person consent to and (b) what degree of consent can a parent give in respect of a child.
I can only speak for Australia, but I suspect most of the world is similar. An adult can consent to many types of physical harm, for example, being punched in a boxing match, or having a serious operation. But in most countries, a person cannot consent to being killed. There is a line between the two and there are questions about where it is, and where it should be, drawn. Female genital mutilation has been ruled by many countries to be over the line, meaning consent is not enough. The second question is what parents can consent to on behalf of their children. It's probably because of changing social views on this question that the issue of RIC arises. Once upon a time, parents were considered to know best in all cases and whatever they said went. Now there is a greater acceptance of the rights of the child. There is a greater tendency to remove children from abusive parents, to allow children religious freedoms etc. Should a parent be allowed to consent to an operation that most people consider unnecessary and that many people consider causes irreparable harm? Threads like this one show that there are very different opinions on that question. But people are entitled to know what the law is. And the point of the Law Institute paper is that right now, at least in Tasmania, we just don't what the legal position is. We don't know if doctors/rabbis etc might be breaking the law for performing a RIC. We don't know if a lawsuit by a child who was circumcised at birth against a doctor (or parent, but that's unlikely I would have thought) would succeed. That puts everyone in a difficult position. A parent whose religious views require them to have their son circumcised but who doesn't want to break the law (or incur a civil liability) is in a bind - they shouldn't be. They should know what the law says. It's hard to disagee witht that.

Thank you for making the distinction. I have said time and time again to norto. I do not argue RIC because there are way too many factors to it: morality, law, the unknown etc.

I am an advocate for adult circumcision WHEN IT IS NECESSARY. I have NO problems with someone who not only loves there foreskin but wants to keep it at all costs. But I also want it to be made VERY clear that if a guy under his own consent decides to be circumcised as an adult his sexual sensation will not be altered.

I also want it to be made VERY clear that everyone's penis is different. You have some guys out there with foreskins that do not feel a thing, as well as you have guys who are circumcised who do not feel a thing. I do not thing this has anything to do with them having or not having a foreskin. I believe it is totally mental. You have circumcised guys like me who's frenulum area is VERY sensitive even without the frenulum.

If you feel you are a "victim" of RIC I believe you are entitled to that. I would be a hypocrite to argue for RIC when rightfully I was given the opportunity to choose for myself and I am happy with my choice.