because the person at present isn't able to consent doesn't mean you get a green light - it means you get a red light! A BIG FLAMING RED LIGHT.
Bzzzt! Wrong, thanks for playing.
Well, hey I'm sure a lot of child-molesters, rapists, and others inclinced to ignore that trivial detail called 'consent' would readily agree with you.
The simple fact though, which you seem not to notice, is that "Saying don't make it so."
If you want to disagree, fine. But if you want to dismiss an entire line of reasoning, you're going to have to come up with something more substantial than, "Well, I want to (and have done this), so I'm going to say it's ok. Don't ask me to explain why in reasonable terms. It's just what 'my people' do to little kids."
Of course, what makes sense to me is based on how I was brought up... my culture, if you will.
And if no one expected you to think, then by all means, go with the flow of what others do around you, and blindly mimic the cultural patterns you were exposed to as a child. Goodness no, we wouldn't want you to develop a sense of ethics that involved anything as complicated as rational thought and principles. Please, do just take this copy, conveniently provided, of 'Our Way', and do what it says.
Don't ask me to respect that lifestyle though.
Rape is illegal because the woman is not giving consent, and in the case of young'uns (stat. rape), the child's guardians aren't giving consent.
Yes, I'm sure all across the world, raped children are crying themselves to sleep because the mean person didn't ask thier mommy or daddy first. I'm tempted at this point not to bother responding to the rest of your post. This is sickening.
But, assuming you meant strictly 'statutory rape' where both parties are consenting, and the law still prosecutes, it's not illegal because the guardians don't consent. In many jurisdictions it's still considered a crime because a person below a certain age is considered unable to form informed consent. Same reason they can't vote, sign contracts, or hold public office. It's something they specify an age for, because it's easier than making a case-by-case judgement of maturity. I can agree that there are mature folks below age of consent, just as I agree there are folks well over the age of consent who are still too immature to exercise informed consent. The law can't verify case-by-case though. It'd be an impossible task. Thus, the 'age of consent', as well as the 'voting age', 'age that you can drive at', 'age you can drink at', 'age this', and 'age that.'
As to my 'broad generalizations', you clearly got your hackles up so quick and early, you didn't read very carefully. I made it quite clear that the purpose of guardianship is to safeguard the person in your custody until they can take over the responsibility for themselves. Of course discipline and inculcation of a sense of ethics, right and wrong is a part of that. Don't get so caught up in dismissing everything that someone who disagrees with you says. It makes it harder for people to agree with you when they spot that. Target specific points in a persons argument that make the conclusions untenable. Straw-man, while an easy fallacy to throw out, is also as easily seen through.
I was quite clear in pointing out that bodily mutilation is an ethical no-no because it misuses the authority of the guardian to ends that are not serving the child's interests. Cosmetic or 'cultural' body modification makes a hell of a lot of assumptions about what the child will later give you retroactive permission to do. For starters, it assumes that the child will in fact be a member of your culture on adulthood. Speaking as one free-thinker, I can tell you it ain't a good bet. Ask any atheist named "Christian" or "Chris" how effective that stuff is at forcing a kid into a particular lifestyle.
And again, I see nothing wrong with male circumcision. I'm not damaging their body. Is piercing ears or braces damaging the body?
I'm wondering at this point how clearly I have to spell out 'P-E-R-M-A-N-A-N-T' or 'I-R-R-E-V-E-R-S-I-B-L-E'. You are removing without hope of repair, a portion of the anatomy. That on it's own is mutilation. Further, it isn't a lump of dead tissue, like hair, or toenails that might grow back or not be missed while absent. It is tissue from one of the most sensitive regions on the skins's surface. Gone, along with any sensation that might have been detected by it.
It is, in fact, damaging. If you still are in denial, perhaps you could help the rest of us out by explaining exactly how much tissue has to be permanently removed, or how much loss of sensation is acceptable before you'd callit 'damaging'. Might help if you used a dictionary and compared with other, related terms like 'injury', 'maim', and 'mutilation'.
As to braces and such, those are all a) temporary and b) for the child's medical benefit. There is no parallel between a cosmetic procedure and a medical one. That both use surgical tools and such is not relevant. It's a 'false generalization' to lump them together. You may as well compare doctors and attempted murderers who use a knife. Just because both use a knife to cut a person up doesn't make the acts ethically equivalent. Technique isn't intent.
Again, it is a cultural decision as to what is damaging and what is not.
Well, I'm pretty sure a postmodernist could argue that everything is relative, left is right, up is down, and all that, depending on your culture. I, myself, prefer to use the dictionary so I can speak the same English that most everyone else is speaking. But go ahead, you go and redefine 'injury', 'maim', and 'mutilation' and all that until you're sure nothing you'd want to do is covered by those terms, as you understand them. Just please let me know which definition you want to use next time we talk, your's or the dictionary's.
Actually I think that whomever the comatose uncut male gave medical power-of- attorney to does have that power.
Ok, are you at all capable of differentiating the possession of authority or capability from the right to use it in a particular way? Is authority its own justification for you, or do you in any way suppose that perhaps authority is granted that a person might use it towards particular ends only? A cop has a gun, does that imply to you an unfettered right to use it? A congressperson or other government official has the power to legislate laws that we must all obey - does this imply to you the unbounded right to dictate *anything* in law, whether it serves a public interest or is just for the benefit of the official's friends or family? The executives at Enron had full control and authority over the actions of the company. Do you mean to tell me that where there is authority and power granted, there can be no misuse of that authority, that power?
We have people like yourself to thank for giving corrupt officials (corporate or governmental) the perception that they have a 'blank check' to do as they like. And no, that's not an exxageration. Unless your going to go inconsistent and argue that you do believe that other people can misuse power, but not you.
This isn't in the same league here, but what about bobbing tails or cropping ears on dogs? What's your take there?
This is the first sign of an actual attempt to delve at the principles we are arguing over. This one sentence is worth more to support your position than the entire post preceding. For an answer, it is the same 'league' - it's an issue of the principle of what are the bounds of the authority and power one has over an entity that cannot speak for itself on an adult level.
No, I do not think one should do such things to an animal. A pet's body isn't a piece of clay to be sculpted or cut up to suit one's fancy or impress one's neighbors.
You'd do better to raise the issue of spaying/neutering animals. :) I do have a problem with this, but having tried to take care of a cat that wasn't spayed, I finally gave in because I couldn't stand to watch her suffer...poor kitty didn't have any male friends and was miserable.
This of course starts us on the whole 'what kinds of suffering are medically treatable.' aspect...like, ok, being perpetually horny/in-heat with no way to get release is pretty bad. But does it justify spaying? I've had to conclude 'yes', but I also see the sense in the other position. Tough one. All I can say is the cat was sooo much happier afterward. And yes, I could tell. :)
[ Parent ]