I think the obvious stance to take with such a thing is to never do anything that has unjustified permanent effects without consent.

And infants can't consent.

I like to think that could be true but cultures vary. Heck, some parents bind their kids feet to keep them small because they think smaller feet make better footballers. That may seem odd to you or me, but for someone like Dominik Szlobszlai of Liverpool, he credits his dad for keeping his feet small, and sees that as part of his success. https://www.the-sun.com/sport/8938503/li...-feet-dad/

It comes down to how the parents justify the procedure to themselves and their medical provider. Culture plays a massive role. Circumcision is culturally acceptable and it's accepted that parents can consent to the procedure on behalf of the child. We may not be religious, but is it right to prohibit others from following their cultural norms?

Yes, I'd say it was right to stop things that were harmful or where there wasn't a good reason to override consent. Otherwise you could pretty much justify anything.

Or, to put it another way, if a child had been subject to foot binding, or FGM, or circumcision, or whatever, and then desired that their permanent body alteration hadn't have occurred, what should the penalty for the parents be?

I mean, I'd I had hadn't face tattooed as an infant, or something, I'd think myself justified seeking recompense against my parents.

Inuit girls in some groups receive face tattoos when they reach menarche. This should be banned?
edit:
We seem to be diverging on whether right and wrong are absolute or are cultural. It may depend on the issue but cultures make the rules. We happen to live in western liberal democracies and that informs our sense of right and wrong. Those could be considered biases by other cultures. Who is the ultimate umpire here?

(September 7, 2023 at 2:05 pm)Nanny Wrote: Inuit girls in some groups receive face tattoos when they reach menarche. This should be banned?
edit:
We seem to be diverging on whether right and wrong are absolute or are cultural. It may depend on the issue but cultures make the rules. We happen to live in western liberal democracies and that informs our sense of right and wrong. Those could be considered biases by other cultures. Who is the ultimate umpire here?

Cultural mores may be regnant, but that doesn't necessarily make them ethical.

(September 7, 2023 at 2:35 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Cultural mores  may be regnant, but that doesn't necessarily make them ethical.

Ethics are cultural constructs and evolve over time.

edit - I don't mean that in a sassy way. Culture always determines what is ethical. It's the mirror culture holds to itself. But this is off topic for this thread.

https://www.rcpe.ac.uk/journal/issue/jou...cision.pdf
https://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/...20foreskin)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...sh%20faith.

As usual, religion sanctions culture, not culture sanctions religion.

(September 7, 2023 at 2:05 pm)Nanny Wrote: Inuit girls in some groups receive face tattoos when they reach menarche. This should be banned?
edit:
We seem to be diverging on whether right and wrong are absolute or are cultural. It may depend on the issue but cultures make the rules. We happen to live in western liberal democracies and that informs our sense of right and wrong. Those could be considered biases by other cultures. Who is the ultimate umpire here?

Right and wrong are just strongly held preferences at bottom.

But it seems society works better when things like consent and harm are held as basic ethical principles.

Ultimately, I just want that. There's nothing metaphysical about it.

Typical Internet give and take. We go from circumcision to facial tattoos on babies. Not a helpful leap.

My son was circumcised and honestly I didn't know it was optional. Even in my wild and wooly youth I only encountered one man who was uncircumcised.

It took years for me to put the pieces together with my brother. He was just a few weeks old and mom took my sister and me with her to see the pediatrician with my brother. I was 9, my sister was 3. We sat in the room while my brother screamed and cried. Mom claimed later that the original circumcision was somewhat botched though I wouldn't doubt her drunk ass screwed something up. That day in the doctor's office the pediatrician was trying to fix it. It wasn't till after having my son that I put those bits and pieces of memories together. That and a friend who was a labor and delivery nurse said she would give her son (if she ever had one) a few drops of wine before the procedure.

Now that you know, would you elect to have your son cut?