No, because I’m aware and I’ve thought this through. I’m arguing it shouldn’t be legal because it’s (obviously) unethical. (Plenty of examples of that.) I’m trying to understand why you think it should stay legal.
If you are going to insist that things are ethical if they have widespread support and no widescale opposition, you have to concede that slavery, the persecution of homosexuals & the denial of rights to women were once ethical & still are in some places.
-
-
In which case, you are a cultural relativist and have not a leg to stand on if your own cultural norms change in a way you don't like. Much better to have consistent principles of human rights than to go with the majority view.
-
I don't think you can say 'cultural relativist' when the culture you are describing is all humanity. What polity in the world outlaws circumcision? It's your position that is eccentric.
-
The argument 'It's right if the majority thinks it is' is what is culturally (and temporally) relative. It's not a good argument for MGM if you want to argue against this in other areas - eg women's and LGBT rights.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I insist that parents have the right to circumcise their boys, and you would find it difficult to refute me. Their rights are right there, in the law.
-
But we are not arguing about what the law says but about what is ethically right and the bases we have for arguing that. FGM has been outlawed in many places because it was accepted as unethical. The same can happen with MGM. Do you have an argument against?
-
I think if you are going to make an argument that the law is wrong, and that there is a higher ethical principle that should override the law, then you ought to make it
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.