Quote:However, If we don't allow parents to tattoo their children (not allowed), I see no reason to allow them to give their children plastic surgery (allowed following psychological examination of the children and consent) or circumcision (allowed following a shrug from the parents). Both are permanent changes to their body that have no purpose other than cultural norms. Either we start telling parents they can't make unnecessary and permanent physical changes to their children's bodies or we tell them they can. We shouldn't simply be picking the changes based on cultural norms.
Hmm. The only reasons I can think of to prohibit child tattoos is if it would be more likely to be abused--i.e., the expected harm from permitting circumcision is less than the expected harm from permitting child tattoos. Perhaps tattoos are more likely to deface the child--they are generally more noticeable than circumcision.
But I don't see why a parent can have their child circumcised for religious reasons but not give them a tattoo of, say, the Spirit God-King Mamoset. If one is permitted (or forbidden) by the free-exercise clause, why not the other?
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
