And as for 'consent': that's a very weak argument. Virtually everything parents do to their little children is without their consent, and much of it has lasting physical and mental consequences.
I’m not arguing for prohibition. I am making a moral argument. I think it is (usually) wrong to cut off parts of a child’s genitals who cannot resist, and I provide arguments for this view.
-
-
Point taken. But constitutional rights are there precisely bc citizens tend to find each other's beliefs and practices morally reprehensible. I would never circumcize my kids, but I defend the right of others to do so under certain conditions.
-
The point of rights is to protect the vulnerable: it is a claim against those with power. No one is more vulnerable than an infant, who cannot protect himself from permanent loss of part of his genitals. Rights should be concerned with the child
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.