|
Should children be violently abused without their permission.
|
 (August 9, 2014 at 5:06 pm)Shaggy Wrote:(August 9, 2014 at 4:57 pm)Diablo Wrote: You're going to give her some nice tattoos too?Nope no tattoos. We tried but it's really tough finding a decent tattoo artist that'll ink up a 3 month old. That is a practical problem. The piercings sound good though. What are you going to do after the ears?  (August 9, 2014 at 5:08 pm)Diablo Wrote:Thinking about a nose piercing too. And maybe both cheeks. Go big or go home right? Mutilation is mutilation.(August 9, 2014 at 5:06 pm)Shaggy Wrote: Nope no tattoos. We tried but it's really tough finding a decent tattoo artist that'll ink up a 3 month old.
You're a strange person. You just said it wasn't mutilation and now you do.
Are you trying to make some point? Re: RE: Should children be violently abused without their permission.
August 9, 2014 at 5:18 pm
(This post was last modified: August 9, 2014 at 5:18 pm by Shaggy.)
(August 9, 2014 at 5:16 pm)Diablo Wrote: You're a strange person. You just said it wasn't mutilation and now you do.It's sarcasm, man. Everything after the ear piercing comment is sarcasm. I was laying it on thick so I thought it would be obvious.
@oneearsteve
So how does that sit with your comment:
"It's not mutilation. It's no more mutilating than a tattoo or a piercing." What you've just indicated is that a tattoo or a piercing is mutilating except for ear-piercing - or at least if not mutilating then unacceptable.
None of it is mutilation. It's alteration. That's what I've said. I have 3 tattoos, and I'm circumcised. I'm not mutilated. My wife has like 8 piercings and tattoos, not mutilated.
But by being sarcastic about tattoos etc for small children you've indicated that it is at least unacceptable, so I'm trying to understand why you made the equivalence between circumcision and tattoos/piercings, and then think that the one is acceptable but the others are not.
And by the way, I'm not trying to win an argument here, I'm genuinely interested in the extent to which children's bodies can be altered by their parents without their permission.
Well obviously tattoing a child is unacceptable. But I think you're reading way to much into the sarcasm.
Children aren't capable of giving consent, so parents make decisions based on what they think is best for their child. I do things all the time regarding my children without asking then permission. What they eat, drink, watch, play with. Parents aren't required to gain their children's consent on shit.
Thank you for confirming the point that tattooing children is wrong, and you made the equivalence with circumcision so that is wrong too.
There are many things you can't do to your child, and many things you have to. As you say, you have to be convinced that these things are in the child's best interests. You can't beat your child, and you have to feed and educate him/her properly etc, etc. Altering your child's body may be necessary in the event of illness etc, but not for any other reason, as you've confirmed. Circumcision comes into the category of things that are unnecessary.
Tattooing children is wrong, but it's not mutilation. That's the difference.
Circumcision has health benefits that outweigh whatever risks people are afraid of. I'm my opinion, the child's opinion really has no bearing on it. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
