Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
Which you then follow up by a study which shows that there are limits to what parents can decide happens to their children. Parents do *not* have the right to withhold essential medical treatment from their children. I'm arguing that there is a case to be made for that reasoning to be extended to irreversible, outwardly visible extensions that serve no medical purpose.
|
Believe it or not, I was aware of the contents of the BMJ report when I posted the link.
Clearly there are caveats - however in the context of a discussion of the minor excision of a piece of skin that has been carried out safely and cleanly for millennia, arguing over exactly where the line is between 'acceptable' and 'not acceptable' is a bit pointless. Being unable or unwilling to define that line makes no difference whatsoever to the issue at hand, namely circumcision. Hence my polite refusal to start debating the merits of allowing people to join death cults.
It's interesting that you say there is a case to be made for "extending that reasoning" to all practices that are not medically essential. I can see why you would want to frame your case so that only the factors you consider relevant should be considered (I.e. medical ones). However, given that the world is an overwhelmingly religious place and even the UK is hardly a hotbed of humanism, I think you need to work a bit harder. Your argument really needs to offer some convincing reason why religious considerations, and the rights of parents, should be set aside.