Summations Only

Don't you think a child has a right not to be tattooed against their will?

Right, it's a foreskin - a useful and extremely nerve-rich portion of the penis, the loss of which is known to be blunting to sexual pleasure. What if the kid grows up and wants to have had one? Don't they have a right to their own bodies? Certainly we allow medical necessity to override bodily sovereignty when it comes to children - or adults, even, sometimes. But we don't allow cosmetic necessity to do so, and we shouldn't allow religious "necessity" to do so either.

But should they? That was my question.Or is it just that you don't believe there's any such thing as a human right?

Well, ok.Could I circumcise your child? Why or why not? Is that because children are property, or is it because they have a right to bodily integrity that, when justified, we allow a parent (guardian, etc) to overrule?If children are property, why do they have a right not to be sexually abused? Surely, if the parent's judgement is overriding in all cases then a parent's decision to force his child to service his sexual needs can't be gainsaid.On the other hand, if (as seems reasonable) we don't allow parents to harm their children, then I don't see how the practice of circumcision - which certainly causes harm to the child - can be justified.

Evidence that it's nerve-rich? Crack a Gray's Anatomy. So they have no rights at all? Then why do we prevent people from sexually abusing children? Even the parents of the child?Children aren't the property of their parents.

If it's not "missed", then how do you explain the practice of "foreskin restoration", linked to by Jon earlier? Why would people have restored something they don't "miss"?Even people born blind can "miss" the ability to see, because we're able to communicate our experiences to each other, and via imagination, experience their perspective.

How about just the things that are medical amputations performed for cosmetic or religious purpose?

I prefer redheads with c-cup titties, myself.Does that mean that all 9-year-old girls should be forced to dye their hair and get implants? It's great to have preferences, but aren't you at all troubled by the idea that your preference means that someone else has to get surgery?

Circumcision was traditionally justified by reducing the boy's propensity to masturbate. The parallel is highly credible.

Because they're medically justified - the benefits outweigh the violation of sovereignty. But there's no medical justification for circumcision - only a cosmetic and religious justification.I mean, great - you wanted your circumcision, and you're happy that it happened before you could remember it. But in order for you to get yours that way, I had to be forced to get mine that way, and I didn't want it.How is that fair? Why does the fact that you wanted a circumcision mean that we both had to get one?

But circumcision isn't justified by the child's health; it's "justified" by the child's cosmetic appearance and the parents' religious or cultural affiliation.And we don't allow parents to violate the integrity of their children's bodies, in permanent ways, on those bases. We don't because that opens the door to a wide variety of abuses - breast implants for 9-year-olds, tattooed infants, even sexual abuse of children. Parents have a limited, not unilateral, right to violate the bodily integrity of their children.

Certainly we're allowed to. Religion doesn't trump the law. Otherwise you could simply assert a religious justification any time you wanted to break the law.

The harm is that they have their foreskin amputated without their consent, and needlessly subjected, as infants, to a profound infection risk and the pain of surgery performed without anesthesia. The burden of evidence is on those who would assert "benefits" to the procedure. I think you do have that right; the same right that allows you to tell a parent that he cannot suck his son's dick should allow you to tell him that he can't have a mohel suck it, either. But what's the basis for you to object, if you don't believe that the child has human rights?

So circumcision should be allowed because it's allowed? Perfectly circular, I guess, but not an argument.

Yes - which is why if you perform an unnecessary surgical procedure on an adult without their consent, it's the crime of assault. It's actually super-dangerous to cut into people's bodies with knives. People get killed that way! What it impairs is the use of the foreskin.