Quote from: Ketsy on October 10, 2009, 07:29:16 AM
I want to be clear that I don't think it 'doesn't cause pain' (elaborated on below). But I think you do have to ask yourself, if the infant won't remember having any experience of the pain, then when we try to alleviate/or prevent this pain, who's interest are we really acting in?
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here correctly.
Every time I read it I see "what the child doesn't remember doesn't harm the child".
Surely you don't mean that. That would mean that as long as the child doesn't remember it, inflicting any kind of pain or abuse on the child is "okay".
Surely you don't mean to imply that an infant screaming in pain is "no biggie cause he'll just forget".
Where do you draw the line? How much damage can be done to an infant without it mattering just cause he/she won't remember?
It brings up images of Peter Connelly (put his name into youtube and watch the video for details) to my mind. An infant that was beaten, treated like a ragdoll, used to train a rottweiler to kill, had his spine snapped and eventually punched until he died all by his stepfather. If the boy had lived he would almost certainly had grown up to forget his ordeal, does that mean that the suffering he lived through was unimportant?
And what about intersexed infants?
The logic eludes me.
Wanting to prevent a child from going through an extreme amount of pain for no good reason what so ever, regardless of whether or not the child actually remembers it in 10 years time, is, to me, about sparing the child the pain. It's not about sparing the parents the indignity of having knowingly allowed their child to be tortured, but about not allowing the torture to start with.
Quote from: KetsyIt's not a far step from arguing against the pain of circumcision to a parent wanting to spare their child the 'pain' of being born gay/trans/etc, if they had the choice.
It is a far step.
One is a cosmetic alteration of a bodypart, one that inflicts extreme amounts of physical pain and is done without anaesthesia, and is perfectly avoidable.
The other is not. Being gay/trans/etc is not a choice, circumcision is. Being gay/trans/etc is not something that is done to you (let alone without permission), circumcision is. Being gay/trans/etc is not cosmetic, circumcision is.
See what I'm getting at?
There's quite a leap between telling people "no, you may not consciously choose to inflict extreme damage and pain on your children's genitalia" and suggesting that parents somehow prevent children from growing up to be themselves.
Honestly, the suggestion seems absolutely preposterous.
Quote from: KetsyA lot of issue is made about how the child-to-be-circumcised is unable to give consent and so forth, but I think we should at least be honest about who is really most served by stopping circumcision -- the child who likely won't remember a thing, or the people who aren't the parents of said child and are really just trying to ease their own consciences?
Again.
How much harm is "okay" to do to an infant under the rule of "they won't remember it"?
At what point does "Do Not Harm Your Child!" stop being about the parents and start being about the child to you?
I just got to ask.
Cause I really can't understand the logic behind this reasoning.