Sexual identify through puberty, through socialization during that puberty, and therefore their own gender by that experience to, prematurely hedge their bets in a way in which they will be permanently prevented from changing their minds? /2
-
-
That is a very decent point.
-
Perhaps tradition has blinded us from the immorality of that. I think this has changed my mind on that subject.
-
Good. I find circumcision to be outmoded, but if a pubescent child wants a procedure & his family condones the choice & a physician who has taken the Hippocratic oath is willing to perform the procedure then I don't think the state should step in, except in some extreme cases.
-
Ok. Well, I certainly do not agree with that. This isn't a matter of the child knowing, and then gaining consent. This is a matter of being physically incapable of knowing. The fact that the parents and a doctor could be so foolish as to assume the impossible is irresponsible.
-
And you keep mentioning the State. Mind you, I'm coming from a libertarian perspective. However, when it comes to the mistreatment of children, I necessarily draw a line. The nebulousness of "abuse" is an issue.
-
If there were a going fashion of being handicap, and if your child was handicapped they would be risen in status, and then your child wanted to have that status, and you then consented to permanently alter that child...for mental health reasons... I can't agree with this.
-
I have no idea what this hypothetical scenario is meant to make me realize. Very confused here.
-
I'm trying to establish a principal. The principal being "Do not mess with a child's natural body by introducing unnatural substances, for any reason, other than preserving the child's life."
- 13 more replies
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.