Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
I'm not arguing that non-harmful interventions should be exempt. I'm arguing that it's debatable whether non-reversible outwardly visible interventions should be exempt. The degree to which reasons in favour of something should be compelling should (to my mind) be proportional to the degree to which an intervention is reversible and visible. Giving a child a cross or star of David to wear on a chain is something else than tattooing one on their forehead, and I think it would be wise if parents gave their children a choice on what happens where their body is involved.
|
That's an interesting approach to the subject, but it very much reflects your own cultural mores. It would be difficult indeed for you to show that a view from the outside such as this could be allowed to over-ride the rights of parents, exercised for millennia, to choose how to bring up their children.