Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Omskärelse av pojkar - en argumentationsanalys av den svenska debatten

Johansson, Susanne LU (2010) MRSG20 20101
Centre for Theology and Religious Studies
Human Rights Studies
Abstract
In Swedish law boys under the age of 18 can legally be circumcised by a certified doctor or a person with a special permission from the welfare board. This is a measure to prevent ignorant people from performing circumcision on boys in unsterile environment and without painkillers. The law has brought up a debate questioning if circumcision should be legal at all in Sweden. The network SNOP – Säg nej till omskärelse av pojkar (say no to circumcision of boys) claim that the operation violates human rights and impairs the sexual satisfaction and the health conditions of the boys both in the childhood as well as in the adult life. At the same time, defenders of the present law believe that an age limit of 18 years would violate the right to... (More)
In Swedish law boys under the age of 18 can legally be circumcised by a certified doctor or a person with a special permission from the welfare board. This is a measure to prevent ignorant people from performing circumcision on boys in unsterile environment and without painkillers. The law has brought up a debate questioning if circumcision should be legal at all in Sweden. The network SNOP – Säg nej till omskärelse av pojkar (say no to circumcision of boys) claim that the operation violates human rights and impairs the sexual satisfaction and the health conditions of the boys both in the childhood as well as in the adult life. At the same time, defenders of the present law believe that an age limit of 18 years would violate the right to religion.
The purpose is to inform of this debate since it so often is concealed by the debate of female circumcision. The debate is analyzed through the rhetoric’s basic tenets: logos, ethos and pathos, but the argument’s sustainability is also analyzed. My conclusion is that the most arguments are sustainable and valid, but the human rights start the biggest discussion. They contradict each other which leads to an estimation of the rights. The rhetoric has its influence on the audience, but the limits of the tenets are not written in stone, a combination between them is to prefer and would wake the attentions of a wider audience. But maybe too much importance shouldn’t be put in the rhetoric as a wage of the sustainability of the arguments. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Johansson, Susanne LU
supervisor
organization
course
MRSG20 20101
year
type
L2 - 2nd term paper (old degree order)
subject
keywords
omskärelse, circumcision, pojkar, boys, religion, mänskliga rättigheter, human rights, filosofi, philosophy, svensk debatt, swedish debate, medical consequenses, medicinska konsekvenser, rethoric, argumantation analysis, svensk lagstiftning, swedish law
language
Swedish
id
1653203
date added to LUP
2010-09-24 16:51:40
date last changed
2014-09-04 08:27:54
@misc{1653203,
  abstract     = {{In Swedish law boys under the age of 18 can legally be circumcised by a certified doctor or a person with a special permission from the welfare board. This is a measure to prevent ignorant people from performing circumcision on boys in unsterile environment and without painkillers. The law has brought up a debate questioning if circumcision should be legal at all in Sweden. The network SNOP – Säg nej till omskärelse av pojkar (say no to circumcision of boys) claim that the operation violates human rights and impairs the sexual satisfaction and the health conditions of the boys both in the childhood as well as in the adult life. At the same time, defenders of the present law believe that an age limit of 18 years would violate the right to religion.
    The purpose is to inform of this debate since it so often is concealed by the debate of female circumcision. The debate is analyzed through the rhetoric’s basic tenets: logos, ethos and pathos, but the argument’s sustainability is also analyzed. My conclusion is that the most arguments are sustainable and valid, but the human rights start the biggest discussion. They contradict each other which leads to an estimation of the rights. The rhetoric has its influence on the audience, but the limits of the tenets are not written in stone, a combination between them is to prefer and would wake the attentions of a wider audience. But maybe too much importance shouldn’t be put in the rhetoric as a wage of the sustainability of the arguments.}},
  author       = {{Johansson, Susanne}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Omskärelse av pojkar - en argumentationsanalys av den svenska debatten}},
  year         = {{2010}},
}