No. I don't think the government should be involved in deciding whether someone has a bit of skin removed from their body either. We agree on that. What we disagree on is whether the individual gets to decide this or whether parents can do so.
Yes. I think it's clear that cutting bits off their penises falls on the "no" side of that line for the reasons I've given. There is no justification for this while there is for making them brush their teeth, have needed surgery, do their homework etc. Going in circles now.
-
-
1. Sorry you think we're going in circles. It seems like an interesting debate to me.
-
2. No one is advocating cutting bits of the penis off, but trimming useless skin from one part of it, which is the difference between a harmless cosmetic procedure, and genital mutilation. But, it's the location of it that's the problem for you, isn't it?
-
3. and, if you believe we're going in circles, I'll end with this hypothetical: A child is born with a birthmark on his hip, that poses no medical reason for immediate removal, and will not reasonably cause any discomfort, etc. to the child, but
-
the parents have the doctor remove it for social/cosmetic reasons, your argument is that the parents should be prosecuted bc the child should have the right to remove it when they are an adult? That's a level of gov involvement in the family that I wouldn't be comfortable with.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.