The fact that young children cannot consent to anything does not give parents a blank check to modify their children's bodies however they see fit. You can't tattoo a child in most US states, even with best intentions; cutting off part of their genitals is far more consequential
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.