Nobody is talking about a 'blank check', that's a false dilemma. But advocates of prohibiting a deep-rooted and for Jews non-negotiable divine commandment should give some thought to the numerous other ways in which parents are allowed to affect their children's health.
-
-
Replying to @StefanPaas @opticon9
Parents can affect their children’s health yes. But how many other healthy parts of a child’s body are parents permitted to cut off? It is not about “health.” It is about bodily integrity
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @opticon9
So, causing permanent changes in brain cells has nothing to do with bodily harm? I find this a very peculiar argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @StefanPaas @opticon9
I said nothing about brain cells. I asked how many other healthy parts of a child’s body parents are permitted to cut off in Western law
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @opticon9
None, as far as I know. Of course, if you define 'bodily integrity' so narrow that only circumcision violates it, you'll always be right. But the simple point is: parents are allowed to harm their children in other, often more harmful ways, for non-religious reasons.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @StefanPaas @opticon9
“But there are other things that are also harmful” has never been a good argument or response to, “This is harmful.” If parents harm their children in other ways, I object to those harms too
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @opticon9
But then the issue of equity arises. Would you really want to prohibit procreation above 40 (for men) or 30 (for women)? Would you prohibit unhealthy diets? Living in a city (fine dust, and considerably shorter life-expectation)? All this creates serious bodily risks.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
My point is: loving and good parents (I'm not talking about the bad ones) are constantly making choices based on their own worldviews, that affect their children's physical and mental health, and often far worse than MGC. Governments should be very reluctant to interfere.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @StefanPaas @opticon9
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @opticon9
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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
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.