0
1

[–] prairie 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Sorry, I had skimmed. Having now read it, it's a great argument.

I'm trying to figure out how it would be extended to define something like circumcision as a violation of the someday adult by the parents, even though they'd own the child when it's an infant under this view. It can't simply be that the adult dislikes what their parents did to them as a child.

0
1

[–] classy_nigger 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It can't simply be that the adult dislikes what their parents did to them as a child.

So what can it be? Being able to decide what happens to your childs genitals affords deciding to mutilate them.

The only half-reasonable argument that doesn't involve abolishing rights altogether is divine right: "God" owns every person but allows us the freedom to act as though we own ourselves as long as we abide by his rules which, ironically, might include circumcision. The problem I find with this argument is that you might as well have "government" or "society" as "God"; some third party in a position of power dictates what the "rules" are. I think it is more likely that priests invoke God the way politicians invoke Democracy rather than the existence of a supernatural and benevolent being only communicating with a few select individuals to dictate how we may act with "his" humans. We might as well have a God with no rules at all, if you can find the right priest.

Another argument might stem from the concept of dual-ownership (triple in the case of 2 parents). It must be that "ownership" is not a binary value but some sliding scale. A convenient argument for the oppressed child who is going to have his genitals cut up, or pimped out to pedophiles, but how to even begin forming such an argument in such a way that it does not depend on subjective concepts of divinity, and thus falling to the same problems as argument 1, escapes me.

0
1

[–] prairie 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It can't simply be that the adult dislikes what their parents did to them as a child.

So what can it be? Being able to decide what happens to your childs genitals affords deciding to mutilate them.

I had to think about this overnight. How about what would be acceptable to do to the adult if they were incapacitated and needed surgery? Foreskin removal would be acceptable if there were a medical emergency requiring it while the adult were incapacitated, e.g. in a coma, just as it would be for an infant, but not simply because others felt like its removal would be aesthetically pleasing while the adult were in surgery for something unrelated. The latter would result in a huge lawsuit. It would be a planet of fresh air if everyone who talks about valuing children and their rights would support adults suing their parents/doctors for removing their foreskin as infants when there was no medical necessity.

More generally, it's a good position on the matter because if a parent whores out their child, there are lots of other abusive things the parent will be doing as well. Fundamentally if a child has abusive parents, the child will suffer short of total state ownership of children from birth (probably the goal of many).

BTW I appreciate your argument. It's lighting some dark corners of indoctrination in my mind regarding ownership and the state's tentacles.