Truemors
Digg
del.icio.us
AddToAny
Write
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Finland Considers Legalising Male Circumcision
by Pasi | July 31, 2008 at 09:02 am | 188 views | 2 comments | 0 recommendations
Why to legalize child mutilation? Why to cause unnecessary pain for several days while urinating on open wound? Ministers should have a circumcision and then they could consider it again.
Causing unnecessary pain for children is and have to be illegal. What next? How about legalizing lips or ear mutilation?
Minister of Social Affairs and Health Liisa Hyssälä has failed with this one.
While the whole World is fighting against young gilrs genital mutilation, Finland goes and legalizes genital mutilation for small boys.
Finland is considering legalising the practice of male circumcision. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health is currently preparing draft legislation, which would make circumcision acceptable when performed by a doctor, according to the parents' wishes, and with the child's consent.
July 31, 2008 at 09:02 am by Pasi, 188 views, 2 comments
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (2)
at 09:25 on July 31st, 2008
So they haven't passed the legislation yet but are seriously considering it? If the child has to give consent for it to be done, it would have to be when they are at least past the toddler stage correct? What about if they are younger, like in the Jewish culture?
- reply
Ted S. in Seattle (not verified)at 11:53 on July 31st, 2008
I am circumcised, as part of my religious tradition, and I had my son circumcised also. It was probably surprising and painful for my son and I suppose it felt that way to me also. I don't remember.
Nevertheless, the practice is a part of several religions and has been practiced for millennia without harm in nearly all cases.
I don't advocate making it a medical requirement, and in fact I would consider doing this to be an infringement of personal liberty. Not quite to the degree of female circumcision, but certainly somewhere on the scale leading there.
However, if members of a religious group wish to continue their traditional practice, shouldn't they be allowed to do so? I don't see how outlawing the practice has any broader social utility other than religious persecution, and I consider the requirement that the practitioner be a physician is in fact an infringement on freedom of religion as well.
I don't see any harm in requiring that the practitioners of the ritual be required to conform to a reasonable set of medical qualifications, but it would be overly onerous to require the practitioner to be a fully licensed physician.