Religious Special Pleading

First of all, I disagree that the state has a right to superced the decisions of parents, given that the decisions fall within a reasonable standard. This was one courts opinion on the matter...in a case involving adoptions:

quote:

---

The court's function has traditionally involved the balancing of sometimes
competing purposes: the protection of family integrity and the protection
of children. On the one hand, limiting the state's freedom to intervene
coercively in family relations reflects a societal value placed on family autonomy
and preservation of family relations. This value underlies a historical
understanding that freedom of choice in family matters warrants a significant
degree of constitutional protection. Deference to the family is based on
an acknowledgment of the complexity and variety of human relationships.
Standards of parenting vary greatly, and parents generally are given liberty
to make decisions about how best to raise, educate, and nurture their children,
even when such decisions run counter to widely-held societal norms.

​

Accompanying this concern for family autonomy, however, is the state's
interest as parens patriae in ensuring the safety and well-being of children
unable to care for themselves. When a parent's care falls beneath minimally
adequate standards or jeopardizes the well being of the child, deference to
the family must yield to the state's interest in protecting its most vulnerable
citizens.3 Thus, when necessary, "the state has a wide range of power for
limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child's welfare."4

​

Stated broadly, in the exercise of its child protection function, the
state's goal is initially not to ensure the best possible end for the child, but
rather to ensure that the child's basic needs are met by the parent.' In implementing this goal, courts face substantial pressure to compel conformance
with societal standards of parenting.

---

The issue is to what end the state should have the power to override the parents. And in general, I don't think that the state should be able to meddle to any large degree.

It repairs to the point that the baby doesn't remember anything happening. It isn't about "justifying" anything. If the parents and the doctor agree on it and the baby doesn't remember it, it's nobody else's business. Bad analogy. A better one would be stealing a penny from a billionaire. He can't detect the loss so he isn't really damaged. And following the will of "most people" leads to oppression of minorities. That's a good question. An even better one that I anticipated is: Should the parents be consulted when a teenage girl wants an abortion?Maybe we need to rethink what "under age" means. Maybe a girl who is old enough to get pregnant is adult enough to choose an abortion on her own. Maybe a 10 year old boy is adult enough to choose circumcision on his own. I'd say that what is is pretty close to what should be. That cuts both ways. If you can make circumcision illegal, you can also make it illegal to be Jewish, Muslim, etc. Our forefathers may not have been as dumb as you think when they emphasized the importance of freedom of religion.

Again, so do a lot of elective surgeries. There are also perceived benefits, whether you can perceive them or not. That's why it's up to the individual and/or the parents and/or the mohel/physician to make the decision, not you. Similarly, it is up to the individual whether or not to ride in a car, jump out of an airplane, etc., not you. If you understand that infants do not have the capacity to give consent, why do you keep bringing it up?

I dunno, maybe for the reason I've said a dozen times now? You know, the one that says an unnecessary, risky and harmful procedure should only done with the consent of the person undergoing the procedure. Harming children is wrong. It's not too hard to understand.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

What if the procedure is necessary? Heart surgery for newborns is becoming pretty common. By your logic, the infant's consent would be needed.

Sure - but you could cut off a baby's ears and say the same thing.It's still causing damage regardless of the memories of the possessor of the body part. But you just tried to justify why its nobody else's business. So yes, it is about justifying things. This thread is about acceptable justifications for circumcising - and possibly other acts that would otherwise be considered immoral = and whether religious exemptions are acceptable special pleading or not.What you've said can be used to justify a wide range of unpleasant things to children that our current laws forbid.So are the current laws wrong - or is your argument? I'm talking about physical damage. But stealing a penny from a billionaire is illegal and he can sue for those damages so I'm still at a loss as to how your analogy is better. That's not really relevant to the point. You just justified sexually abusing or otherwise torturing babies - that isn't defended or even addressed by a discussion of the tyranny of the majority. Reynolds v. United States (1878) already covered this, as I said to you back in Message 22. The government cannot make being Jewish illegal just like they could not make being a Mormon illegal in that case. They can however, make actions illegal - even ones associated with a religion - so bigamy can be illegal even if it is permitted or encouraged in Momonism or Islam. Human sacrifice can be made illegal even if some religions have had it as an essential part of their practices. Non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision is also an activity not a belief.

quote:

---

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice?

---

You mean the other question that been asked and answered a dozen times?
If an operation is medically necessary, of course there's no problem with consent. The operation is in the best interest of the baby.If an operation is not necessary for medical reasons and also carries risk and direct harm, there's no rational reason why it should be allowed until the person is able to consent to it.But you know all this, so I'm going to stop feeding you for a while.

I'm the one who agrees with the current laws, so I don't know what your point is. No, I have not justified sexual abuse of children, as I said explicitly in another post. I agree with the present laws that have different applications in different situations - not your simplistic idea of banning everything that babies don't like. The Nazis did make being Jewish illegal for all intents and purposes. If you make enough practices illegal, it becomes impossible to function. That's what I told Tangle in my first post in this thread. But if you target an activity that belongs to one or two specific groups, it begins to look like you're targeting the group and not the activity.Remember that the Mormons were persecuted before the practice of polygamy was made public.

But it isn't up to you to decide what's necessary. The rational approach is to leave such decisions to the individual or the person who is authorized to make decisions for the individual.

Nor, I would argue, is it up to the state except in rare cases. The focus of our debate here is whether circumcision is, in fact, one of those rare cases where the state should have the power to override family decisions. Yes there is. the reason is that the state should not normally be given such power.

We've done this. We've done this.

Indeed we have. And yet you keep coming back to the same old same old rationale for intruding in other people's lives.

We've done that too.Your debating technique is to bore people to death with repetition but provide no fact or evidence. So be it.

So we are in agreement that the principle used in these statements:

quote:

---

If the parents and the doctor agree on it and the baby doesn't remember it, it's nobody else's business.

---

quote:

---

Try suing for damages in a court of law when you can't remember any "damage" happening.

---

quote:

---

The child wouldn't even know anything happened if nobody told him.

---

quote:

---

"Damage" that the child doesn't even know about shouldn't be counted as damage.

---

Summarised as 'if you aren't aware of damage, then no damage has been done, therefore the government should not be intervening' is specious? Because we both agree that child sexual abuse or cutting a child's ears off is still harmful and/or damaging even if the child forgets the harm or damage as it grows older. Are the Nazis our forefathers who emphasized the freedom of religion? If not, this response misses the point. Circumcision does not belong to one or two specific groups. But even if it did the fear of appearing to target a group should not be a reason to tolerate practices by that group if it is shown those practices are harmful.Let's take a look at arguments so far you've put to me

• Trying to ban something that is "harmful" causes more problems than it solves This is not universally true, unless you want to argue banning child sexual abuse has caused more problems than it has solved or torture or...
  
• Our institutions and our parents don't agree with you Tyranny of the majority?
  
• I'm not banned from murdering because it's harmful to me. Non therapeutic neonatal circumcision is something done to other people, not oneself.
  
• if nobody talks about a problem, it's hard to establish that there is a problem. People do talk about circumcision as a problem
  
• Harming a child is equivalent to harming the parent. Nonsense
  
• Damage is a matter of opinion. It's pretty well defined
  
• There are doctors doing it, so let's let them decide. Doctors are capable of doing harm - See Mengele since Nazis are on the table
  
• the human body is self-repairing Just because amputation wounds heal it does not mean amputation is not damage, particularly amputation of a healthy body part
  
• The child wouldn't even know anything happened if nobody told him. Damage doesn't become not-damage if you forget that it happened.
  
• If you can make circumcision illegal, you can also make it illegal to be Jewish, Muslim, etc. Belief should not be a defence against something being criminalised. This would be religious special pleading. It's the only argument I've seen that has ever had traction in court - but it doesn't justify all actions and the line seems to be drawn arbitrarily.

Facts and evidence don't justify trampling on individual rights.Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.