Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

if its sacred why does the biblical deity relentlessly commit indiscriminate murder? Even were I to accept this woolly vapid sentiment, it is obvious that an embryo, blastocyst or foetus, is not a "life" in the same sense a sentient person is, and to grant rights to an insentient clump of cells, that would effectively take away the rights of sentient women, makes no moral or rational sense.

You can hate abortions, that's your choice, as I said if you don't like abortions, then you don't have to have one.

It’s not even biblical.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Because the rape case is heinous and involves an adult taking advantage of a minor. For circumcison, it's parents doing what they think their child will want them to do.

Many rapists think that victims really want it.

 

[dybmh]

Many rapists think that victims really want it.

I hear you. It's a good point.

 

[Sheldon]

Because the rape case is heinous and involves an adult taking advantage of a minor. For circumcison, it's parents doing what they think their child will want them to do.

So adults imposing their wishes, by ignoring the fact a child can't give informed consent then.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because the rape case is heinous and involves an adult taking advantage of a minor. For circumcison, it's parents doing what they think their child will want them to do.

How is religious infant circumcision not a matter of an adult taking advantage of a minor?

 

[dybmh]

How is religious infant circumcision not a matter of an adult taking advantage of a minor?

Intent.

 

[ppp]

Intent.

You say that intent determines whether an adult is taking advantage of a minor? Is that across the board, or just in the case of circumcision?

 

[dybmh]

You say that intent determines whether an adult is taking advantage of a minor? Is that across the board, or just in the case of circumcision?

in the case of any medical procedure

 

[Subduction Zone]

in the case of any medical procedure

Ooh. Ouch! So if one has a religious reason then castration, a medical procedure, is okay?

 

[dybmh]

Ooh. Ouch! So if one has a religious reason then castration, a medical procedure, is okay?

Maybe it's wrong, but it's not taking advantage

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe it's wrong, but it's not taking advantage

I would say that it is both.

 

[dybmh]

I would say that it is both.

It depends on intent. The details of the circumstances would make the difference.

For example, if the child was in a terrible car accident, they're in a coma and their genitals were crushed beyond repair. The Dr. says the child will live in constant extreme pain unless the genitals are removed. If the parent chooses castration, they aren't taking advantage. When the child wakes up, they may decide the parent made the wrong choice, but the intention wasn't taking advantage. The intention was: "what's best for the child".

 

[ppp]

in the case of any medical procedure

Female genital mutilation? Plastic surgery for beauty contests? Refusing blood trans fusions or antibiotics? Having a second child to provide organ "donations" to the first? Foot binding? Cranial deformation?

All of those?

 

[dybmh]

Female genital mutilation? Plastic surgery for beauty contests? Refusing blood trans fusions or antibiotics? Having a second child to provide organ "donations" to the first? Foot binding? Cranial deformation?

All of those?

It depends on the intent. One would need to be a mind reader in order to judge that the parents are taking advantage of the minor.

 

[ppp]

It depends on the intent. One would need to be a mind reader in order to judge that the parents are taking advantage of the minor.

Why do you think that it depends upon intent?

 

[Sheldon]

It depends on the intent. One would need to be a mind reader in order to judge that the parents are taking advantage of the minor.

If it's not a medical requirement, and it carries any unnecessary risk, then the moral thing to do is wait until the child reaches an age where it can give informed consent. There is no medical or moral reason not to.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Even if you banned elective abortion, those would still happen because they are through medical necessity.

Hogwash. Most are for convenience.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It depends on intent. The details of the circumstances would make the difference.

For example, if the child was in a terrible car accident, they're in a coma and their genitals were crushed beyond repair. The Dr. says the child will live in constant extreme pain unless the genitals are removed. If the parent chooses castration, they aren't taking advantage. When the child wakes up, they may decide the parent made the wrong choice, but the intention wasn't taking advantage. The intention was: "what's best for the child".

This would be a red herring since neither my nor your examples are based upon car accidents.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Intent.

Isn't your intent to take advantage of a minor?

I'm asking this question in all seriousness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it's not a medical requirement, and it carries any unnecessary risk, then the moral thing to do is wait until the child reaches an age where it can give informed consent. There is no medical or moral reason not to.

Oh come on!! God needs his foreskins.