Well, this is a new tactic! Take an article you don't like, and claim the writer is under the influence of some sixteenth- and seventeenth-century thinkers you don't like either, and must therefore be wrong. I don't know if Brendan O'Neill has ever heard of Hobbes and Locke, but it doesn't much matter if he hasn't since -- let me break the news to you gently -- there have been some further developments in political and secular thought since 1704.

If O'Neill IS wrong -- and he is -- it's not because of a fanatical devotion to the British Empiricists, but because of a wilful refusal to admit that violence resulting from irrational beliefs is just as culpable and wicked as any other kind. Nobody can make you do stupid, vicious things like circumcising a baby without your consent; and the possibility that your consent comes from a religious upbringing is utterly beside the point.

Without commenting on the rights and wrongs of male circumcision (consenting adults only, perhaps?), one must firmly reject the conflation of the practice with female genital mutilation which can be used as a back door way of okaying genital assault on girls.

The difference is in the purpose. The purpose of female genital mutilation is to deprive women of enjoyment of sex. It is driven by malice embodied in certain "cultures" which we are urged to consider to be as valid as culture informed by the Enlightenment.

Anyone who participates in any way on this brutal assault on a girl, including spiriting her to debased countries to get it done, should get life imprisonment without parole. That includes parents, relatives, religious advisers and anyone else who joins in the coercion).

Robert Darby seems to suffer from a deficiency of logic. One is supposed to review the facts and from them draw a conclusion. What RD has clearly done is start with an opinion then try to cherry pick some facts (and ignore others) to support his prejudice.

Fact:

Children have rights, and the parents as the carers of the children are given the authority (within limits) to make decisions on their behalf with regards schooling, religion, and medical treatments. All this can be over ridden by the state if the decisions of the parents are deemed not to be in the interests of the child.

Fact:

Male circumcision has proven therapeutic value, which outweighs the risk of the procedure (according to the US paediatric body)

Fact:

Female circumcision whether a mere nick or the full mutilation has no therapeutic value what so ever, and causes either a small or large amount of harm respectively.

Fact:

The risk of harm, and the pain of the procedure is minuscule at 4 days old, but increases significantly after puberty.

Fact:

Socially female circumcision is intended to damage the girl's libido and control her, whereas male circumcision today is intended for hygiene, and for social inclusion.

Conclusion (for those not suffering from prejudice or intellectual impairment)

1- There is a huge difference socially, medically and ethically between male and female circumcision, and the comparison between the two is similar to the comparison between homosexuality and bestiality, that got CB in trouble.

2- The increased deleterious effects of male circumcision after puberty (compared to at birth) render the argument that the decision should be left to the child ridiculous (similar to a 12 month waiting period for abortions)

3- Given the lack of ill effects of male circumcision, and small but significant benefits, this clearly lacks any justification for the state to consider banning or even recommending against the procedure.

4- Given the paucity of his arguments and the extensive effort he has given to ban male circumcision, I suspect Robert has a foreskin fetish.

@Shadow Minister: "The ... pain of the procedure is minuscule at 4 days old"

Ah, so all that screaming and sobbing is just the babies trying to put us off. Tricky little buggers, aren't they?

Would you care to explain how you come by this information? Someone who can communicate with four-day-old babies would be an enormous asset to any maternity ward.

>>Given the lack of ill effects of male circumcision, and small but significant benefits<<

Are any of these small benefits the sort you can't get by practicing safe sex and basic personal hygiene? Cutting off a baby's foreskin seems a bit excessive when there are other ways to combat the problems that circumcision helps with. Circumcision is a very safe procedure but there are risks - what do you do if you're one of the unlucky ones? Why take the risk in the first place?

Cheers,

Tony

JJ,

We had my son circumcised after discussing this with a paediatrician friend of mine. The urologist used an anaesthetic cream and the correct equipment to protect the child. There was no screaming or sobbing, less even than when he had his vaccinations. (would you consider vaccinations a violation of his human rights?)

I imagine things might be different with a Rabbi (or any other non health professional) and no anaesthetic, but my point is precisely that the procedure done properly is safe, relatively painless, and has small but enduring health benefits.

TL,

I agree that the benefits of this 2 minute procedure can be compensated for with a lifetime personal hygiene regime and continuous safe sex (from which no one deviates?). The risks of vaccination can be avoided by staying away from other people that might be sick.

What is your point?