home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky misc.kids:31330 soc.men:21940 alt.atheism:24690 alt.sex.wizards:4177
- Newsgroups: misc.kids,soc.men,alt.atheism,alt.sex.wizards
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsc!ajaym
- From: ajaym@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (alton.jay.mitchell)
- Subject: Re: A few facts about circumcision
- Organization: AT&T
- Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:02:27 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Dec31.160227.24191@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>
- References: <1992Dec31.145255.3618@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
- Lines: 26
-
- > If she did think of it as a negative, it wouldn't be because *you* think so.
- > And when applied to circumcision, the same applies.
- >
- >> "REASON" is used by our own experiences.
- >>
- >> "HUMAN RIGHTS"? What does that have to do with it?
- >
- > What basis do you use to justify making this decision for the infant? In
- > answering this question, I would caution you not to use false analogies
- > like comparing the circumcision decision to immunizations or any other
- > decision that parents make for children. With circumcision we are talking
- > about a medically unnecessary procedure, that if done to an unconsenting
- > adult would result in legal action against those involved.
-
- Whoa! Wait a minute - I don't follow the logic here! Sticking a
- needle and immunizing an unconsenting adult would definitely be
- grounds foa suit. What makes you think that is any different than
- circumsizing an unconsenting adult?
-
- I don't see why a parent making a decision to circumsize their child
- is any different than a parent making a decision to remove their
- child's tonsils (assuming no existing infecction). The point is,
- until a child is old enough (adult?) to make these decisions for
- themselves, the parents are responsible for making them AS THEY SEE
- FIT as long as the child's life is not endangered. Neither a
- circumcision nor a tonsillectomy is endangering.
-