What's love got to do with it? Criminals are those who violate the law. If Iceland bans male genital mutilation and a parent violates that law, that parent is a criminal. My argument is strong: cutting a child in the name of *your* religion violates the child's religious freedom.
I oppose harming children, for religious or non-religious reasons. What is legally permitted vs what is morally unobjectionable are not the same set
-
-
But do you see why it comes across as rather prejudiced to constantly single out this particular (potential) harm, while neglecting many others? Is the harm done for religious reasons worse than what is done for career reasons or whatever secular reason?
-
I argue against all forms of non therapeutic, involuntary genital cutting, for females, intersex children, and males. I am not singling out circumcision. However, I do think the genitals are “special” - a uniquely serious and intimate way to be harmed
-
Sexual assault is treated more seriously than other forms of assault - violations of a person’s “private parts” are, I think, rightly “singled out” compared to various other harms
-
Well, permanently changing your children's brain structure or lung-cells (fine dust) or whatever cells (wrong diet) or life expectation in general seems to me just as bad, and often worse, than a minor cutting at the age of 8 days.
-
Well okay - those things create risks of harm, distributed widely. Circumcision constitutes harm, is a 100% risk, and always affects the genitals. So not comparable. But yes, parents should not harm their children in those other ways either.
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.