Quote:
Originally Posted by LOCpunks
....circumcision shouldn't have anything to do with infant rights....
It's not about "infant rights"- those kids grow up eventually, this is about the fact that their bodies have been altered before their ability to make consent on such decisions.
You know why pedophilia is illegal in western society? Any idea? It is really simple: we believe that pedophilia is bad because it involves doing a sexual act with someone who is unable to consent to sex because they are too young to make a decision on such an action. That is the entire basis for all of our legislation regarding minors and sex acts, porn and other such things. IMO you can try to trivialize this all you want (I take offense to the notion of this issue being about "infant rights") but we as a global population need to come to terms with the reality that children/minors are not enslaved to their parents, nor are they property of their parents.
I see this no different from institutions that force, coerce or lie to parents to get them to endorse forced sex status assignment on intersexed newborns.
Quote:
...With AIDS as rampant a problem as it is, and circumcision proven to be a significant and direct prevention technique to the spread of AIDS (and a host of other STIs), circumcision is quite necessary.
Just because something has benefits does not mean it is necessary to require it by law. Should condom use be required for everyone on the entire planet by law in order to curve std transmissions? Oh wait, I have a better idea... why don't we just use the government to demand that surgeons remove the heads from every male penis on the planet (since after all; if there is no pleasure there is no recreation, if there is no recreational sex aids transmission stats will go down...).
Quote:
It's sad that here in America people are so hung up on rights that they'd rather see thousands and potentially millions die simply from ignorance.
And just what would the purpose of life be at all, if it is without liberty? There are always ways in which we could sacrifice liberties for a real or false sense of security on any number of issues in which innocent lives are at risk... choosing to abandon our rights in favor of these concerns is kinda like having your doctor tell you at your next physical that they want to decapitate your head to decrease your odds at developing a brain tumor. This is not something unique to this issue; if a principle is valid it will apply and work in any and all relevant situations. We could just as easily be talking about the so-called war on terror or any number of other issues where we are supposed to believe that sacrificing our liberties are a valid trade off in exchange for a real or precieved sense of security... and once you make that trade off there will always be one other issue in which the same argument reappears, the same dialog occurs and at the end the citizen is left with less recognized natural rights then they had before hand.
Quote:
As much as some of you may think it is someone's "right" to leave their child uncircumcised
It is not their decision to make. Their child should be able to consent to what medical procedures are preformed to alter their body.
Quote:
it is not their right to spread HIV and other invasive diseases to their children, spouses, communites. And that is simply what failing to circumcise (among other easily-done and cheap procedures to ensure future health in developing countries) is: a means to that end.
Sounds to me just like a more educated version of the argument used in rural Africa to justify using rusty dull razor blades to forcefully mutilate the genitals of their female populations... Why not just round everyone with aids up and shoot them (note I am being sarcastic and not endorsing that concept) since after all, it will be a cheap and easy way to keep them from infecting others. It is truly unfortunate that conditions exist the way they do in some parts of the planet but until these populations stop the self destructive, self inflicted maladaptive behavers (aka start wearing condoms, no more of these "i can cure aids by fucking ___ virgins" myths, etc etc etc) then it really isn't going to make a difference how many rights you violate to try to help the world become a better place.
Quote:
After much discourse with her, there is no doubt in my mind that forced tubal ligation in women is necessary.
Necessary? Truly? The history books (and in living semi recent history I may add) show that India tried forced sterilization policies for their population. I suggest you read up on those experiences before suggesting anything along those lines as a blanket, general proposal to counter something like aids progression or maternal fatality.
Quote:
But it is NOT their choice to have sex. This is what you must understand. A woman there does NOT have the right to say no to sex or subsequent impregnation.
No, she does have the right in the sense that it is a natural right; the issue is rather or not that right is respected and recognized... aka I have a natural right to bare arms. That doesn't change rather I am in Virginia, New York, London or Russia... rather or not those governments chose to recognize that right is a separate issue but that right is still there just the same. The saying goes that people are free but born bound in chains.
Again, this goes back to consent issues; these countries need to recognize the civil liberties of their female populations and need to make the reforms needed to ensure such rights are respected.
