(April 28, 2018 at 6:46 pm)Alexmahone Wrote:(April 28, 2018 at 6:34 pm)henryp Wrote: Out of curiosity, where do you draw the line?
Orthodontics? haircuts? fingernails?
Haircuts and fingernails are the most extreme examples I can think of of a parent not wanting to alter their child's body. I'd assume that doesn't apply, but you never know.
Braces for their teeth though, I'd be curious on. Having metal glued to all their teeth, and then wires fed through, and slowly tightened over the course of several years, permanently reshaping your jaw and teeth though...along with the substantial discomfort it causes. That seems in the ballpark of pierced ears and circumcision?
I think that getting braces for a 10 year old, with their consent, is completely different from circumcising a baby who cannot possibly consent.
(April 28, 2018 at 6:45 pm)Lutrinae Wrote: You can ask Valk. She'd probably agree. It's more reasonable done on an infant who won't have any memory of the pain. An adult WILL have memory of the pain, wishing his parents had been smart enough to have it done when he was an infant.
Why can't the adult get it done under a local or general anesthetic?
I don't think a 10yo can give real consent. I don't think consent is required either. Do you think a 10yo should be able to refuse orthodontics? That's an interesting idea. Can a 10yo refuse a flu shot?
Regarding waiting until adulthood, you lose out on a lot of the non-aesthetic benefits. The American Association of Pediatrics (or something like that) says the medical benefits outweigh the risks, for example. So it's not merely a whim of religious folks or wanting a them to have a prettier dick.
