Should female circumcision be legal in the US? - Page 6

JayTee · #51 10-21-2007, 02:56 PM

An infant has the right to not be agressed against. Statements like "well it could help prevent xyz" are are simply trying to rationalize an ancient ritual. Guys who say they don't care aren't taking into consideration opportunity costs. I've read that men who have circumcision after they have already had sex report that there is noticeable desensitivity. Wash out your dick cheese and you'll be alright.

mjkidd · #52 10-21-2007, 02:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it seems like the only arguments for infant circumcision are paternalistic, and I'm not a big fan of paternalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Weren't you arguing that "infanticide should be acceptable" (I assume you meant legal, not acceptable), that children have no rights and that they aren't people? If you don't care that the child is killed, what do you care if they are circumsized?

[/ QUOTE ]

I explained that in my post above. What part did you not understand?

JayTee · #53 10-21-2007, 03:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it seems like the only arguments for infant circumcision are paternalistic, and I'm not a big fan of paternalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Weren't you arguing that "infanticide should be acceptable" (I assume you meant legal, not acceptable), that children have no rights and that they aren't people? If you don't care that the child is killed, what do you care if they are circumsized?

[/ QUOTE ]

I explained that in my post above. What part did you not understand?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think that infants have the right to not be murdered? When is the right gained? Birth seems to be a pretty clear cut line to me.

xorbie · #54 10-21-2007, 03:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You don't think that infants have the right to not be murdered? When is the right gained? Birth seems to be a pretty clear cut line to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Birth is only "clear cut" because it is convenient and indisputable.

mjkidd · #55 10-21-2007, 03:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it seems like the only arguments for infant circumcision are paternalistic, and I'm not a big fan of paternalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Weren't you arguing that "infanticide should be acceptable" (I assume you meant legal, not acceptable), that children have no rights and that they aren't people? If you don't care that the child is killed, what do you care if they are circumsized?

[/ QUOTE ]

I explained that in my post above. What part did you not understand?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think that infants have the right to not be murdered? When is the right gained? Birth seems to be a pretty clear cut line to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think a day or so after birth. Why is your view superior?

BuddyQ · #56 10-21-2007, 03:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sort of, I guess.

The nature of my objection to the mutilation in question is that it is done on children who have no say in the matter. When a 'procedure' that will have life-long consequences is done on children, the burden should be on the one attempting it to show that it is in needed, needed in the medical sense, not the cultural.

In general, I'm not a fan of 'culture' over individual choices, no.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes this your choice to make though? The choice to force a culture to adopt a cultural practice cannot be seen as anything but an invasion and should not be done lightly, IMO. I think this is an important point that is missed in AC theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think I largely agree with you.

JayTee · #57 10-21-2007, 03:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it seems like the only arguments for infant circumcision are paternalistic, and I'm not a big fan of paternalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Weren't you arguing that "infanticide should be acceptable" (I assume you meant legal, not acceptable), that children have no rights and that they aren't people? If you don't care that the child is killed, what do you care if they are circumsized?

[/ QUOTE ]

I explained that in my post above. What part did you not understand?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think that infants have the right to not be murdered? When is the right gained? Birth seems to be a pretty clear cut line to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think a day or so after birth. Why is your view superior?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a mother has the right to not be forced to care for a child not the right to agress against the child. In other words, I think a mother has the right to walk away from a child after birth, but not step on its head.

JayTee · #58 10-21-2007, 03:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You don't think that infants have the right to not be murdered? When is the right gained? Birth seems to be a pretty clear cut line to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Birth is only "clear cut" because it is convenient and indisputable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Property rights. Prior to birth the fetus is inside the woman's body and therefore is subject to her decisions.

mjkidd · #59 10-21-2007, 03:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I think a mother has the right to not be forced to care for a child not the right to agress against the child. In other words, I think a mother has the right to walk away from a child after birth, but not step on its head.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a mother can leave her kid in a dumpster to freeze to death? What's the difference?

JayTee · #60 10-21-2007, 03:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think a mother has the right to not be forced to care for a child not the right to agress against the child. In other words, I think a mother has the right to walk away from a child after birth, but not step on its head.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a mother can leave her kid in a dumpster to freeze to death? What's the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, placing the child in a dumpster could be viewed as an act of aggression. Obviously me saying that a person has the right to do something doesn't mean that I condone it. The difference is the difference between the statements "babies have the right to live" and "babies have the right to not be murdered".