0
OK AM, without spending 2hrs of my life dealing with that entire post...half of it is unsupported conjecture used as *evidence* and the other parts make me wonder.
So far, the argument boils down to parental rights. Regardless of logical ability of the child to make decisions dependent on age, how people "feel" or basing arguments on false analogies (Madsen Pirie wept), there is question I would like to have answered, and of which the answers would be very telling in ways we may go into later. The question is:
Until the child is an adult, should the parent be the one to make medical decisions based on what the parent thinks is best for the child?
I am firmly in the 'yes' camp. Anything else invites other people (through the state and subsequent laws) to make decisions regarding what are my dependents and my progeny. Medical cases can be dealt with more liberally on a case by case basis within this framework. I am more worried about whether or not busybodies in the public telling me what I can or cannot do within my household.
This applies to circumcision and whether or not a parent decides to have it performed on their male children.
To answer no, is to invite other people to control your household and lives of your children through force. It's bad enough some areas bad homeschooling, forcing you to make your child go to a public school, representing a new change of authority in that the state becomes the parent in legal matters (unless this has changed in the last year that I read about). I do not want them to make medical decisions for me or my children either.
Here is some food for thought: many religions and their adherents practice circumcision as a rite and in line with the particular religion's tenets. To make any law regarding it, is to make a law with respect to religion (which could be anything depending on the person)? That could have major legal implications.
So far, the argument boils down to parental rights. Regardless of logical ability of the child to make decisions dependent on age, how people "feel" or basing arguments on false analogies (Madsen Pirie wept), there is question I would like to have answered, and of which the answers would be very telling in ways we may go into later. The question is:
Until the child is an adult, should the parent be the one to make medical decisions based on what the parent thinks is best for the child?
I am firmly in the 'yes' camp. Anything else invites other people (through the state and subsequent laws) to make decisions regarding what are my dependents and my progeny. Medical cases can be dealt with more liberally on a case by case basis within this framework. I am more worried about whether or not busybodies in the public telling me what I can or cannot do within my household.
This applies to circumcision and whether or not a parent decides to have it performed on their male children.
To answer no, is to invite other people to control your household and lives of your children through force. It's bad enough some areas bad homeschooling, forcing you to make your child go to a public school, representing a new change of authority in that the state becomes the parent in legal matters (unless this has changed in the last year that I read about). I do not want them to make medical decisions for me or my children either.
Here is some food for thought: many religions and their adherents practice circumcision as a rite and in line with the particular religion's tenets. To make any law regarding it, is to make a law with respect to religion (which could be anything depending on the person)? That could have major legal implications.