Whereas cutting off their foreskins is good for them, according to the same organisation.https://twitter.com/Independent/status/1061282692304695296 …
-
-
Do you also opine on whether doctors should be able to amputate other healthy, functional tissue from non-consenting kids for no medical indication, say, for example, the labia? Or is it just the foreskin--and only on boys--that you feel zealously inclined to defend?
#Hypocrisy -
I'm not defending anything apart from the concept of implied consent. And your next point is?
-
This implied consent you speak of implies that you support a parent's right to have their girls' genitals cut as well as their boys. Are you OK with this?
-
I don't see why I support that. It's a probabilistic model. Read Matthew Kramer's book, "The Quality of Freedom" (OUP, 2008). But I don't suspect will read it because you're not interested in the argument. So-called "Intactivist"fanatics remind me of vegan fanatics. One side only
-
I've read that book. It doesn't mention forced genital cutting of either sex, so the onus is on you to expound on your assertion that it is relevant to this discussion. It seems you just like vomiting out digressions to avoid facing the reality that your position is hypocritical.
-
I never said Kramer does discuss circumcision in that book. I said he discusses the probabilistic model. Kramer published in favour of freedom to circumcise in his paper "Paternalism, Perfectionism, and Public Goods,"published by the University or Cambridge Faculty of Law in 2015
-
Probability has nothing do with the discussion at all. Pointing us to a book by a random author does not prove your point. That's one viewpoint.
-
Probability has a lot to do with it. The author, Matthew Kramer, is not "random." He is a professor at Cambridge University and recognised as one of the world's leading legal philosophers.
- 17 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This is an issue of ethics and individual rights, not medicine in most cases. This isn't about someone choosing it for their own body, or rare cases of medical necessity for a child.
#i2 -
If you wish to discuss ethics, go look up "Implied consent" or "tacit consent." It's a standard thing. But given you are a fanatic without your "intactivism" I don't expect you to understand it. Try reading some standard liberal thought.
-
Willing to have a discussion about it. This issue may be more complex that you're presuming. There are conflicting rights to be sorted out. Parental rights have limits, including proxy consent to medical care.
#i2 -
Is it not standard liberal thought that we each deserve the maximum possible control over what happens to our own bodies?
#i2 -
I notice you completely ignore the issue of implied consent/ tacit consent. Am I surpised? Not really.
-
I can assure you that I did not consent, implied or otherwise, to the medically unnecessary removal of part of my sexual anatomy that I was subjected to during infancy. No other infant does, either. You apparently disagree, so please explain.
#i2 -
You clearly don't understand implied consent if you think you have to give it. You should perhaps read John Locke "Two Treatises of Government" for an idea and ask an barrister in England or Wales to explain the ruling in Collins v Wilcock (1984). Now run along and clear off.
-
You clearly don't understand implied consent if you think you don't have to imply it by some action or inaction, alternative to some other (opposite) inaction or action that would imply withholding consent. A baby doesn't imply consent by just lying there being a baby.
- 21 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Neither cholesterol nor open-heart surgery is given to normal healthy babies. Infant male genital cutting is not medicine but a stone-age blood/sex/magic ritual that crept into religion, then into medicine under false pretenses ("moral hygiene" - to punish & impair self-pleasure)
-
It's irrelevant what it is. What matters is whether consent exists, implied or explicit.
-
Of course it's relevant whether an action is life-saving/necessary or a primodial ritual disguised as surgery. A baby can give neither implied/tacit nor explicit consent. Are you perhaps trying to talk about _proxy_ consent?
-
No. I'm talking about implied consent. If I were talking of proxy consent, I would have used that term.
-
Except circumcision uses proxy consent, with the parents as a proxy, giving such consent. Its the only non therapeutic surgery for which such proxy consent is allowed.
-
And so? Parents consent to giving children fatty foods. Parents consent to sending screaming children to their bedrooms. Parents consent to getting their child's hair cut. And so on. Children cannot consent to anything.
-
None of those are irreversible. If a child as an adult wants to eat healthier they can, if they want to stay out all night they can. Hair grows back, foreskin does not. Irreversible procedures require a higher standard.
-
Even if there is a higher standard for circumcision, that does not mean to say that that it should not be done. It might be assessed the higher standard is passed.
- 11 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.