I believe in individual freedom, not giving some people the freedom to deny freedom to other people. That includes limiting the rights people have over their children's bodies and beliefs.
-
Show this thread
-
Our duty of care & discipline to our children should not include permanently modifying their bodies to mark their entry into our religion, political party or football team. The fact that the last two are clearly unethical to almost everyone should show the problem with the first.
4 replies 14 retweets 58 likesShow this thread -
Even if we can show that a very high incidence of children accept the same religion, political party and football team as their parents and are glad of the modification as adults, the fact is that there are always some who don't and aren't & they should have individual freedom.
4 replies 3 retweets 35 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @HPluckrose
The majority of American parents who opt for circumcision in the natal ward aren’t doing it for religious, political, or sports reasons. I’m curious if you would enforce your ethic. Should it be illegal?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HARBDARREL
Yes, the same rule applies. I am arguing that religious customs should have no more special significance than secular ones. In most cases, we don't allow parents to modify their kids bodies without medical need. We shouldn't make an exception for this.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
OK, but let’s speak of the law and practicality first. The UK has a law against FGM and is incapable of enforcement. Do you think that outlawing circumcision will help? Because it’s consistent?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HARBDARREL
I think it would prevent many cases coz safe options weren't available but drive others underground to less infection and pain controlled "surgeons." This is a practical consideration rather than an ethical one. Kids still have the right to freedom of choice.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Also, it’s tangential to your principle, but do you think it matters that circumcision has a visual purpose (right or wrong) of projecting masculine sexuality, and that FGM is designed to suppress female sexuality?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HARBDARREL
Circumcision among non-Jews in America was also about preventing sexual pleasure and decreasing masturbation, tho. But I genuinely don't know how circumcision projects masculine sexuality. We don't have it much here & I'm not aware of connotations like this for cut men.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
It’s not complicated. A circumcised penis shows more, and looks more like an erect penis. It exposes what is concealed. Circumcised penises are extremely dominant in porn, which can be presumed to not have inhibition of masturbation as a concern. 1/2
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Circumcision is replicated across many cultures. If feminist analysis has accomplished anything it has established the unlikelihood that men would consistently emasculate men. Circumcision and FGM are sexual dynamic opposites.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.