Religious Special Pleading

Maybe it's because I'm old-school but in my experience, men don't look. Men don't even make eye contact in a public washroom.

When I say that harming the child harms the parent, that is a general truth, not a universal claim that no parent in the history of the universe has ever harmed a child. Your point that parents can and do harm their own children does not refute the point that harming a child also harms the parent.That has nothing to do with whether or not a parent has the right to make medical decisions for his/her child.

My contention is that as long as the parent is generally aware of whether or not the child is harmed, we shouldn't concern ourselves with "permission" - i.e. we should not infringe on individual rights in general because of the possibility of harm in a few cases.

Clearly not.

You could not have picked a worse example. Haven't you heard that Jews practice circumcision? The quote is about what you do to them, not what they choose for themselves.It's the difference between them choosing skydiving and you throwing them out of a plane. The difference is their choice.

You can't decide for somebody else what is "harmful" to them. What you're saying is that the child's right should outweigh the parents'. In reality it doesn't, and for good reason.

I said that "you" can't decide. Those examples are decided by consensus of society. In the example of circumcision, consensus of society doesn't agree with you. Thanks for your opinion. I'll file it with the others. The child's overall well-being is the responsibility of the parent. "Bodily integrity" appears to be an excuse for special pleading on your part.

In a way, yes. You seem to define "harm" in some sort of absolute sense. I don't. Slavery, circumcision, etc. are dealt with by society when/if they are deemed harmful to society. Hair? Fingernails? If you want to hear a child cry, try cutting his fingernails. (I haven't had a haircut since 1972 and I still hate cutting my nails.)

So you don't see the irony? Shylock was a Jew. He was clearly not speaking against circumcision.You're doing the same thing as the creationists who quote Darwin to disprove evolution.

With glasses.

Been there, done that. The issue here is not whether circumcision can occasionally have bad effects. The issue is who decides.

And I'm saying that the issue is who decides what is harm. "Harm" is not something that is standing out in the middle of a field by itself. "Good effects" and "bad effects" are a spectrum. You can't just say that something "is" bad to justify banning it. You have to weigh the bad against the good.Edited by ringo, : Typos.

That's the point. There is no "given" definition of harm. The people who are doing circumcisions don't consider it "harm". Nor does society as a whole.

Obviously false. Are tattoos harmful? Are piercings harmful? Are some piercings "more harmful" than others? Is skydiving harmful? Is caffeine harmful? Is "too much" caffeine harmful?There are as many opinions about "harm" as there are people. If there was no "good" to it, why would millions of people be doing it? You're trying to impose your own narrow idea of "good" the same as you're trying to impose your own narrow idea of "harm".

And circumcision is legal. Does shooting yourself in the foot "harm" your argument?