Summations Only

Do they also have the right to determine whether it's in the best interests of the child to flog him in order to drive out the demons?

I think that the only reason this is controversial at all is that it's Jews who are doing it. They've been doing it a long time, it's part of a well-established religion, and the Jews have taken quite enough crap. Especially from the Germans.Now, try this thought experiment. Suppose that circumcision had never been thought of before. Suppose a new cult called Woboboism arose yesterday, and made it one of their tenets that infant boys should be circumcised. Is there the chance of a snowball in hell on a hot day that one single person on these boards --- theist or atheist, liberal or conservative, libertarian or whatever-the-opposite-of-libertarian-is --- would step forward and say that Woboboist parents should have the right to do that to their children?No. We'd be all: "Seriously? They do what? And without anesthetic? ARRGH! Stoppit stoppit stoppit." We would put forward such a display of unanimity as these forums have never seen before nor will again.Anyone who can't take the same attitude towards circumcision as practiced by Jews is being influenced by some consideration other than the morality of the act considered in itself.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, but parental rights are, so I would appreciate it if you'd answer my question instead of evading it. You are usually so forthcoming with your opinions; surely in this instance you could come up with a yes-or-no answer.

To illustrate the importance of this concept, I'd amputate both your arms without your consent --- only then how would you post on these forums to admit that you were wrong?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

All hail the great Wobobo, who willeth that these things be.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So in Germany, children do indeed have the right not to be circumcised, and parents have no right to circumcise. The courts are standing up for the rights of children, which are the rights of children because the court is standing up for them --- and their decision is a good one because it has been made.The question of whether we should follow them is, of course, currently unknowable. If we do, then infants would have this "right to bodily integrity" whereof Modulous speaks, and it would therefore be right to defend it. But if we don't then they don't and it wouldn't.Since whatever we do in this respect will turn out to be right, and the opposite wrong, we might as well just toss a coin.

Make up your mind.

(1) Quite so. When he reaches the age of discretion, he can say: "I choose not to be circumcised". At which point ... wait, the foreskin doesn't then magically grow back, does it?(2) I would have said that it was the parents' responsibility not to make choices that are pointless, painful, and irrevocable. In fact, just pointless and painful would be too much.

OK, let's talk about rights.Here's the state of Virginia explaining their reasons for secession: "That these causes are to be mainly found in the denied equality of the rights of the slaveholder and the non-slaveholder [...] and by other acts importing a denial of our rights of property in our slaves".See, they're having their rights taken away from them. In the name of liberty, these rights must be defended. "First they came for the slave owners, and I did not speak out, for I was not a slave owner."Some might have suggested that the enslaved had rights, such as not being slaves, but this is framing the issue all wrong --- clearly the real issue is "the rights of the slaveholder".Likewise, husbands used to have marital rights -- to have sex with their wives whenever they (the husbands) chose. Alas for liberty, only a handful of crackpots protested when these rights were taken away. "And then they came for the rapists, and I did not speak out, for I was not a rapist."Next someone will will make a law saying that my right to swing my fist ends at your nose ... wait, they've already done so? Well, what about my right to steal your property?What, is there no liberty left? "And then they came for the muggers, and I did not speak out, for I was not a mugger."At the bottom of the slippery slope, there lies what pusillanimous liberals and craven conservatives describe as "a decent society" --- one in which I have no right to own my own slaves, rape my own wife, or bust you in the snoot with my own fist. Tyranny, in other words.Have we done enough sarcasm now? OK.Clearly, to confer rights upon some (or all) people is to take away the rights of other people to infringe them; and vice versa.Sometimes, this presents us with ethical difficulties. In the case of circumcision, there are none. Do we confer upon parents the right to perform a cruel, barbaric, unnecessary and irrevocable act of mutilation on their children, or do we confer on children the right not to have this done to them? It would seem to be a no-brainer, and so I can only suppose that certain people round here have less than no brains.It is, as ringo remarks, easy to take away the rights of others. Yes, ringo, it is. It's particularly easy to take away the rights of children. You, after all, will never be a child again; and also there's absolutely nothing that children can do about it. So on this we're agreed: it is easy. It's also easy to shout about "parents' rights" while you're doing it. It's as easy as falling off a log. And about as dignified.