I always find it entertaining when a circumcision advocate thinks s/he is being so clever to bring up the abortion debate. It's amusing to watch them congratulate themselves because they're so sure they've caught intactivists in an inconsistency.
The quip goes something like this:
"You intactivists are the same people who support abortion. You support killing an unborn child, but are up in arms about a tiny piece of skin?"
The wording varies from person to person, but overall, the accusation that intactivists are all pro-abortion, and the attempt at dismissing intactivists based on this accusation is the same.
Straw Man
There are many things wrong with bringing up the abortion debate, particularly in the fashion in which circumcision advocates do, beginning with the straw man accusation that all those who protest the forced genital mutilation of infants also happen to be pro-abortion.
Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain... only straw.
Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
Scarecrow: I don't know... But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking... don't they?
Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.
The fact is that there are intactivists on both sides of the abortion debate. There are intactivists believe that it is a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to carry a baby to term, and then there are intactivists who believe it's wrong to kill an unborn child.
Intactivists on BOTH sides of the abortion debate, however, agree that circumcision should be the choice of the individual male to whom the penis in question belongs.
Red Herring
The truth of the matter is that the abortion debate is nothing more than a diversion to distract from the crux of the argument; a red herring.
Why does the crux of the argument always seem to elude people? Are people being willfully ignorant? Or are they simply that dense?
Intactivism is about CHOICE for the individual.
Though the standpoint is different on each side, choice is at the crux of both sides of the abortion debate, be it choice for the unborn child, or choice for the mother.
For this reason, being in favor of circumcision of infants is inconsistent with either side of the abortion debate.
A person who is "pro-choice" could not consistently argue "my body, my
choice" for women, while ignoring the same principle violated in healthy, non-consenting children.
(Unless you're male...)
If you are "pro-choice," it is hypocritical to be arguing "my body, my choice" for girls and women, but tossing this argument out the window when it comes to boys and men.
If you are "pro-life," it kind of defeats the purpose to be fighting for his "right to life," but not for the right to his own body.
"Protect the unborn child..." (until he's born)
Why is it wrong to chop up a child within his mother's womb, but perfectly OK to be cutting off parts of his penis just as soon as he comes out?
Conclusion
I repeat; being in favor of circumcision of infants is inconsistent with either side of the abortion debate.
"My body, my choice" applies to both men AND women.
A child's "right to life" includes his right to his own body.
I will always object to the use of 'pro-abortion' and 'pro-life' - nothing about pro-choice is 'pro-abortion', it's simply about allowing everyone autonomy with their own bodies. Grown women with lives and thoughts and feelings and friends and families. It's not pro-abortion, that's an absurd turn of phrase.
ReplyDeleteAs is 'pro-life', given that restricting access to abortion kills women, simple as.
I think it depends on your standpoint.
DeleteTo some people the woman's life, choice, are more important.
To others, it's the child's.
"Grown women with lives and thoughts and feelings and friends and families."
Nobody seems to care for the grown men that the babies who are circumcised become.
I hope we can both agree that "my body, my choice" applies to ALL, not just women.
It doesn't depend on your standpoint though! Pro-choice people are not advocating for everyone to abort, they're advocating that women should have the option to make informed decisions about her body, based on what's right in her circumstance.
DeleteSo called "pro-life" people are trying to restrict women's options and usually care little about the consequences to women.
This being said, I'm pro-choice for everyone and I wouldn't ever even consider mutilating my future son or daughter's genitals.
These replies are simply cases in point.
Delete"So called "pro-life" people are trying to restrict women's options and usually care little about the consequences to women."
And the consequences to the child?
Sharp readers will note that I'm pro-life. I am against abortion. However I think that abortion should still be an option in certain cases. If the mother's life is in danger, and there is no way to save the child, I say it should be an option. A rape victim should not have to carry a conceived child to term.
I will always oppose abortion when the child could very well survive, and his mother just changes her mind. I don't think that's fair. To me an abortion of a child that can survive is nothing more than infanticide. I have read accounts of doctors killing babies that survived abortion. I think this is fucked up and sick. A pro-circ that brings up the abortion debate with me simply does not know what s/he's getting into.
As much as possible, I am against abortion. But I am not for restricting a woman's options; abortion should still be, as in circumcision, a last resort where there is no better form of treatment. I am more in support of sex education and contraception. Sometimes abortion is inevitable, but I'm for avoiding it as much as possible.
But we shouldn't be distracted from the crux of the argument; choice. Whatever side of the abortion argument you are on, you cannot consistently argue in favor of circumcision.
The abortion argument is a red herring, and a rather effective one, if you can't already tell.
I haven't got deep enough into this issue, but I'll just give my very subjective opinion about the matter anyway.
ReplyDeleteI believe a woman can abort in special circumstances like rape, if it's detected that the product comes with a severe physical deformity or a severe case of mental retardation that will affect the product's capacity to survive by its own in life, or any other circumstance that puts the mother's life in danger.
As I said, I haven't researched the issue in depth nor am specialist in human embriology, but I believe an abortation can be legally done before certain amount of time. Correct me if I'm wrong, I think before 90 days of gestation where the product doesn't present human features and is not considered a baby or human or whatever the techinical definition may be.
I believe it's better to perform an abortion right away and even before 30 days when the product is still (excuse my ignorance) cells in formation.
I do not condone a woman to have an abortion done when she consciously and irresponsably has intercourse without protecting herself from getting pregnant.
Of course there are many other circumstances that I fail to see both for and against the issue, but I think, -although through a limited point of view and knowledge- these are the cases where I consider abortion an option and where it's not.
I have never understood why people bring up the abortion issue when circumcision is discussed. I don’t get it.
ReplyDeleteIf you are thinking it is a human rights issue, there is a clear distinction. Once a baby is born it is considered to have the full array of human rights and governments are expected to protect these rights. With very few exceptions, everyone agrees with this.
Before the fetus is born, there is debate on how much autonomy to assign to the fetus and when that should begin. Some people believe the fetus should have the same complement of rights as a baby who has been born. Some people believe that interests of the mother outweigh the interests of the fetus. What both groups agree with is that as the fetus develops, the interests of the fetus worth protecting increase.
You can argue that the fetus has interests worth protecting: there will be some who agree with you, some who believe the fetus has interests but the government has no obligation to protect them, and those who believe the mother’s interests outweigh the interests of the fetus. This is an important area of debate, but it has nothing to do with circumcision.
Circumcision is a human rights violation of a baby, who everyone agrees has the basic human right of bodily integrity and security of person. If you believe that a fetus has the basic human right to bodily integrity and security of person, why wouldn’t you believe that a newborn baby should have the same basic human right?
What is logically inconsistent is someone who opposes abortion but does not oppose circumcision. Why should a mother not be allowed to abort a fetus, but be allowed to cut on the genitals of their baby? This logical inconsistency is one of the reasons why people trying to protect the basic human rights of newborns stay out of the abortion debate. If you care so much about the fetus, you also have to care about the baby.
There is a huge difference between how the law treats a fetus and how the law treats a newborn baby. People looking to protect baby boys from circumcision are relying on aspects of the law that are generally accepted. There is no reason to unnecessarily venture into areas that are murky. Too often the fetus is called a baby hoping that no one will miss the fact that in our culture they are not morally equivalent. So the death of a fetus is not considered the same as the death of a baby. While some may consider this distinction arbitrary, this distinction is real.
I saw this on another blog and thought it addressed the point discussed here.
I would extend the invitation to anyone who believes in the rights of the fetus to join in helping to protect the rights of the newborn because it is morally consistent. Also when a doctor circumcises a newborn boy, that doctor fails to recognize the dignity and moral worth of that baby. If a doctor can’t recognize the dignity of newborn, how do you expect that doctor to recognize the dignity and moral worth of the fetus? So, the efforts to stop circumcision are helping the cause to protect the fetus.
I also hate the labels of “pro-life” and “pro-choice” because you can be both. I have seen bumper stickers that say “choose life.” That would reflect my sentiments.
Ah, but then the clever pro-circ will ask, "Circumcising a fetus in utero would be morally acceptable, because the child does not have rights as long as he isn't born. Do you agree?"
DeleteAs someone who is "pro-choice" and believes that "fetus" and "baby" aren't equivalent, how would you address that?
For me, it's easy; I'm pro-life and against abortion. To me a fetus IS a baby with rights, and I make no such "distinction."
"Too often the fetus is called a baby hoping that no one will miss the fact that in our culture they are not morally equivalent."
I disagree. I think to often a baby is called a "fetus," hoping no one will miss the fact that, in or outside a woman's womb, it is a living human being.
The question of "what do you think of in-utero circumcision" is moot. The principle violated is the same, in or outside of the womb.
How would you address the statement "Since the unborn fetus inside its mothers womb has no recognizable rights until he is born, then, as a pro-choicer, you must agree that circumcising the unborn fetus inside its mothers womb solves the ethical problem of violating that child's rights, because he hasn't got any."?
It is inconsistent to be pro-circumcision on any side of the abortion debate. But to me, when you start splitting hairs, I think pro-intact and pro-life coexist the most harmoniously.
"Circumcising a fetus in utero would be morally acceptable, because the child does not have rights as long as he isn't born. Do you agree?"
DeleteNo. Your mistake is to ignore the fact that a fetus which continues to live will grow into a human being outside the womb; forcibly circumcising the fetus forcibly circumcises the man he will become, and will therefore trespass upon that man when he exists.
However, killing the fetus does not harm the man he will become, because that man will never exist.
As an aside regarding your pro-life stance: Consider the current, accepted, modern, medical definition of a human body that is no longer a person: Brain death. When brain death has been objectively identified, a body's organs can be harvested, etc.
How does that test of brain death apply to a fetus—particularly a fetus that has no brain yet?
I think you will find it difficult to disagree that by that very test—one which you likely already accept as a suitable definition for when a body is not a person—there is a large swath of time during which a fetus is emphatically not a person; killing it is therefore not murder (or "infanticide"). Indeed, even setting an upper limit of 20 weeks gestation provides an absolutely huge margin for error; the de facto standard is 28 weeks.
"Your mistake is to ignore the fact that a fetus which continues to live will grow into a human being outside the womb; forcibly circumcising the fetus forcibly circumcises the man he will become, and will therefore trespass upon that man when he exists."
DeleteSo far so good.
"However, killing the fetus does not harm the man he will become, because that man will never exist."
It is hard for me to understand how the above statement can follow the one beforehand. On the one hand you recognize that a fetus eventually becomes a man. On the other, you seem to, for no apparent reason, out of the blue, want to justify killing a fetus, the very same fetus, which in only the previous sentence, you acknowledge that eventually becomes a man.
Killing the fetus outside of the woman's body once it is born will also not harm the man he will become because that man will never exist.
"As an aside regarding your pro-life stance: Consider the current, accepted, modern, medical definition of a human body that is no longer a person: Brain death. When brain death has been objectively identified, a body's organs can be harvested, etc."
If and when that person has agreed to allow his organs to be harvested. As far as I am aware, the last time I checked, one could indicate one's wishes to donate his/her organs after one's death, or in the event that s/he becomes a brain dead vegetable. This gets into the hairy dilemma (and completely different tangent) of, what to do with a person's organs if that person never expressed his/her posthumous wishes one way or another.
"How does that test of brain death apply to a fetus—particularly a fetus that has no brain yet?
DeleteI think you will find it difficult to disagree that by that very test—one which you likely already accept as a suitable definition for when a body is not a person—there is a large swath of time during which a fetus is emphatically not a person; killing it is therefore not murder (or "infanticide"). Indeed, even setting an upper limit of 20 weeks gestation provides an absolutely huge margin for error; the de facto standard is 28 weeks."
The way I see it, this "test" is based on a few dubious premises; first, that a fetus that doesn't have a brain yet is indeed equivalent to a person who has been pronounced brain dead. In just the previous sentence you were just talking about how a fetus will grow up to become a man. While a person may be brain dead, that body isn't going anywhere; the body will continue living and breathing until people decide to pull life support (another dilemma in and of itself), that body is not going to develop a new brain and get up anytime soon.
Second, that the accepted, modern medical definition of a human body that is no longer a person, one who has been pronounced brain dead, can indeed be applied to an unborn, even one that has no brain yet. A person who has been pronounced brain dead is not going to develop a new brain, get up and walk away a new person. An unborn, whatever you choose to call it (the medical name for an unborn is "fetus," I choose to call it an unborn baby), is not "brain dead," as it may not even have a brain yet; a "fetus," even one that doesn't have a brain yet, unless he is developing an abnormality, such as anencephaly, WILL have a fully functioning brain.
As a side note, scientific observation reveals that babies are able to recognize their parents' voices and react to them from within the womb. Some doctors recommend parents talk to their children and play music for them for their in-utero development. They react to music and other sounds. I find it hard to believe that an unborn child is akin to a brain dead person.
A third premise that I see is the assumption the morality of killing an unborn child seems to rest on whether or not it can be called a "person." The pro-choicers' covert contract seems to be that they can justify abortion as long as they can define the unborn as a "non-person"; their arguments rest on carefully crafted definitions of "person," kind of how like the pro-circ's arguments rest on warped definitions of "mutilation" and "science" and "medicine."
WOULD abortion be wrong if you can, through etymological gymnastics, make it so that the human being growing inside a woman is "not a person?"
I dunno. Again, in previous sentences, you were explaining how circumcising an unborn would be wrong because it would eventually BECOME a man.
The problem then, is not whether or not a "fetus" is a person or not; the problem that I see is that a "fetus" is going to BE a person. If research is correct, a child hears and recognizes sounds, and reacts to them in utero. Maybe it doesn't fit your definition of a living human being entitled to rights, but it fits mine.
I oppose abortion because I can't see it as anything else than killing a human being. We can go on and on about whether that human being is a "person" or not. I have heard people talk that babies aren't yet persons, even outside the womb, and that for this reason it is still justifiable to end a baby's life. Where do you draw the line? When is the baby a child with protectable rights? IS it the instance it exits its mothers' body?
DeleteA 9 month old child about to be born, is it not a human being with rights one minute, but is the next?
To me, the answer is NO.
It is sick and disgusting to me that some people can actually justify killing a full term child (IT IS A FUCKING CHILD) as long as its still in its mother's womb. It is fucking sick and twisted logic that I see no different than the logic mutilators use to justify circumcision. (He won't remember it... He feels no pain... Babies don't have fully developed nerves, etc., etc...)
Now, as I have said before, I realize that sometimes abortion is necessary. I realize that sometimes a mother's life is in danger. I realize that sometimes babies don't develop correctly; I support abortion if the child is turning out to be a grotesque deformity, and the child is just going to suffer for the rest of his life.
Yes, sometimes mothers get pregnant, and are unfit to take care of children, the child will grow up in a horrible environment and the best thing to do is end its life prematurely. Yes, I realize that rape happens, and victims should not have to carry the child of their perpetrators to term. I realize that some mothers are going to want an abortion so bad that they'll go get someone to do it for them in some back-alley with a coat hanger. I realize that abortion should remain a legal procedure.
But to me, an unborn child is still a human being, and an abortion is nothing other than actually taking a human life. Sometimes it's necessary, as in the example vegetable human being given before, but it is still ending a human life.
A brainless child and a brain dead vegetable may not fit the accepted medical distinction of "person," but to me, they are not equivalent. An unborn will grow up to become a person; a brain dead vegetable is a body on life support. Abortion kills a growing human being barely embarking on its life; pulling life support is allowing a body which should have been dead a long time ago to die.
I am pro-life because, as much as possible, I think the number of abortions should be reduced. For this reason I am pro-sex education, pro-contraception, pro-adoption. Unwanted children should be prevented. But if a child is already fully formed, if it can live outside its mothers' body, why not let it?
Sometimes abortion may be inevitable.
It should remain a legal procedure.
But I will always see it as nothing more than killing a human being prematurely, and as much as possible, I'd like to work to reduce its incidence.
Let's remember that this conversation is a red-herring; we can quibble with semantics all day.
DeleteComing back, let's remember that a pro-circumcision stance is inconsistent with the principles of either side of the abortion debate.
"My body, my choice" applies to both males and females.
A child's "right to life" includes the right to his whole body.
"As a side note, scientific observation reveals that babies are able to recognize their parents' voices and [and music and] react to them from within the womb... Maybe it doesn't fit your definition of a living human being entitled to rights, but it fits mine."
DeleteSuch phenomena start at a minimum of 30 weeks gestation; distinguishing voices has been established at around 38 weeks, just 2 weeks before birth. It is quite disingenuous to appeal to these phenomena when the de facto limit for abortion is essentially already 28 weeks, let alone 20 weeks.
Of course, you might point to the most basic brain waves which can perhaps be recorded after 8 weeks of gestation, by which time the entire fetus is less than 2 inches long; good luck arguing that a brain that small is capable of "human consciousness" worthy of satisfying a reasonable sense of personhood, especially for a phenomenon that has hitherto been only a clumb of cells (not a being with dependents and plans).
A single cell does not a person make, and neither does a clump of cells or even a body without a functioning brain.
"the problem that I see is that a "fetus" is going to BE a person."
Circumcising a fetus is problematic because it is going to affect that person. When a 7-week old fetus is destroyed, there is never a person to be affected.
It is sick and disgusting to me that some people can actually justify killing a full term child (IT IS A FUCKING CHILD) as long as its still in its mother's womb.
This is a straw man argument, especially in the face of, say, a 20-week upper bound. In fact, it's already widely illegal to do that.
According to Wikipedia: In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year; as of April 2007, 36 states had bans on late-term abortions that were not facially unconstitutional (i.e. banning all abortions) or enjoined by court order, and 13 states prohibit abortion after a certain number of weeks' gestation (usually 24 weeks). In England and Wales during 2004, the average gestational age during an abortion was 9.5 weeks.
"Such phenomena start at a minimum of 30 weeks gestation; distinguishing voices has been established at around 38 weeks, just 2 weeks before birth. It is quite disingenuous to appeal to these phenomena when the de facto limit for abortion is essentially already 28 weeks, let alone 20 weeks."
DeleteI was under the impression that an abortion can now be performed up to 9 months, even as the child is being born, in what is known as "partial-birth abortion."
I have read accounts of babies surviving abortion, and doctors killing born babies by either drowning them, or cutting the spinal cord at the neck.
"Of course, you might point to the most basic brain waves which can perhaps be recorded after 8 weeks of gestation, by which time the entire fetus is less than 2 inches long; good luck arguing that a brain that small is capable of "human consciousness" worthy of satisfying a reasonable sense of personhood, especially for a phenomenon that has hitherto been only a clumb of cells (not a being with dependents and plans)."
Biff! Bam! Down goes another straw man.
I *might* point to said brain waves, but I appreciate you doing it for me, in order to kick my rear in advance. :-D
"A single cell does not a person make, and neither does a clump of cells or even a body without a functioning brain."
Which is why I am more supportive of killing the unborn in its early stages. If you go back and read, I am not fully against abortion, I'm for reducing the practice as much as possible. My argument is that, if the child can survive outside its mother's body, without life support machines, then it should by all means be allowed to live, as I don't see a difference killing it in or outside of the womb.
"Circumcising a fetus is problematic because it is going to affect that person. When a 7-week old fetus is destroyed, there is never a person to be affected."
Can't this argument be applied to a child, even once it's born, even after a few weeks? Months? If you kill a small child, it will never become a grown adult.
The pro-circ hypothetical of the in-utero circumcision seems to win out, because "a non-person (by pro-abortion standards) without rights" is being circumcised... :-/
"This is a straw man argument, especially in the face of, say, a 20-week upper bound. In fact, it's already widely illegal to do that."
It would be nice to see the legislation that governs this.
Wikipedia is known for its bias, as you may or may not already know.
As far as I was aware, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both signed legislation that made abortion legal up to the 9th month, even as the child is being born.
1,032 per year... That's a lot of babies. More than the estimated 100 per year that die from circumcision.
I don't care if that percentage is "low, low, low," I'd like for there to be a concrete law that protects children after the 20-week period you speak of.
"36 states had bans on late-term abortions that were not facially unconstitutional (i.e. banning all abortions) or enjoined by court order, and 13 states prohibit abortion after a certain number of weeks' gestation (usually 24 weeks)."
It'd be nice to see something federal...
"In England and Wales during 2004, the average gestational age during an abortion was 9.5 weeks."
This sounds ideal...
Remember, I don't fully oppose abortion (please read above).
And remember, the definitions of "person," etc. are all a red herring tangent. Bottom line is, no matter what side, a pro-circ stance is inconsistent.
I wanted to elaborate more on this:
Delete"A single cell does not a person make, and neither does a clump of cells or even a body without a functioning brain."
You seem to still oppose in-utero circumcision because you acknowledge the fact that the unborn child will eventually become a grown person.
Yet you seem to have no problem in killing the very same unborn. I can't see this as anything other than inconsistent.
At least for me, the moral acceptability of killing an unborn child does not depend on whether or not the child can be defined as a "person" with rights.
It can be argued that child, even after it exits its mother's womb, is still not a "person" yet.
I believe my moral opposition to killing an unborn child, fetus, call it what you want, is based on the very same principle of why you oppose in-utero circumcision. While an unborn may not yet be a fully functioning "person," it is killing a person that it is destined to become.
I resent that you equate a developing child without a functioning brain to a person who has been pronounced brain dead. While both may be "bodies without functioning brains," the unborn is destined to have one. You yourself acknowledge that in-utero circumcision would violate the rights of a grown man.
So while I acquiescence to the fact that abortions will be performed whether y like it or not, while I would rather they not be performed at all, if they're going to be done, I would rather them be performed as early as possible.
I would rather men and women take responsibility and take proper contraceptive precautions. I would rather we allow proper sex education in schools. I would rather unwanted children to be put up for adoption, and people be encouraged to adopt.
I accept that abortions will continue to be performed, and it should be a legal choice for women to make.
But I will always see abortion as the taking of an innocent life.
An interesting note on how the Japanese view abortion:
DeleteWhen a pregnancy is terminated prematurely, resulting in a dead child, be it a miscarriage or a still born, it is traditional Japanese custom to honor the soul of the child. The child's soul is offered to a deity known as "Mizuko Jizo."
Mizuko means ‘water child’ and is used to refer to the soul of a child who is to be looked after by Jizo, the Buddhist deity who protects and guides the souls of children.
Abortion is regarded as the conscious decision of parent(s) to send the soul of a child to the gods, to a temporary place until the right time for the child to come into the world, either into the same family or another one. The practice of Mizuko Jizo allows Japanese parents to provide a certain amount of attention to the child, who is regarded as a member of their family: to apologise to the child and to ask for forgiveness from their child for being unable have them.
The problem of abortion seems to be that the people who support it do not want to believe that they are killing a human being, ergo the question of "what constitutes a person?" Abortion is justified, it seems, as long as the fiction that the child isn't a "person" can be preserved.
Perhaps abortion would be more accepted, and perhaps it would happen less, if people accepted the reality that they are in fact, ending a human life.
The arguments of "what is a person," and/or "does an unborn have a soul" would be moot points.
At least for me, they are.
"Can't this argument be applied to a child, even once it's born, even after a few weeks? Months? If you kill a small child, it will never become a grown adult... Killing the fetus outside of the woman's body once it is born will also not harm the man he will become because that man will never exist."
DeleteThis argument for what, exactly? The problem is that you think this sentiment is being used as a premise in an entirely different, stronger argument than the one in which it is actually being used; your logical analysis is failing hard here.
The pro-circ hypothetical of the in-utero circumcision seems to win out, because "a non-person (by pro-abortion standards) without rights" is being circumcised... it can be argued that child, even after it exits its mother's womb, is still not a "person" yet.
The problem is not that a non-person is being circumcised. The problem is that a future person is going to be made to suffer—it becomes a problem when that person actually exists and is actually suffering.
Here is the fundamental distinction: When circumcising a fetus, one doesn't know whether that future person will suffer; but, when killing that fetus, one knows for certain that no future person will suffer.
The false equivalence is entirely yours, and that is the point of the above sentiment; other statements are made to argue the stronger question we're dancing around.
if people accepted the reality that they are in fact, ending a human life.
Accepting reality is being concerned for the living, not the dead.
"This argument for what, exactly? The problem is that you think this sentiment is being used as a premise in an entirely different, stronger argument than the one in which it is actually being used; your logical analysis is failing hard here."
DeleteSo clear things up for me.
It sounds like, you would oppose in-utero circumcision, because this would affect the man a "fetus" would become.
But killing the fetus itself is OK, because doing so means it would never become a man; problem solved.
Am I missing something here? I'm trying to see the logic in this.
Your argument seems to be that "killing a fetus is ethically acceptable, because it would never develop into a fully grown person."
But at the same time, you want to argue that circumcising a fetus is wrong because it affects the man it is destined to become.
Maybe I need to study this logic further, for I can't see this as anything other than you wanting to have your ethical cake and eat it too.
If I am understanding your logic correctly, that killing a fetus is morally tenable because "the fetus is not a person yet," then I think that it follows that a born child can be killed, even once it exits its mother's body, because it can be argued that even a newborn isn't a "person" yet, and laws need to be amended. (If indeed we agree that it is not being a "person" that justifies in-utero abortion.)
"The problem is not that a non-person is being circumcised. The problem is that a future person is going to be made to suffer―it becomes a problem when that person actually exists and is actually suffering."
So altering a fetus that will become a person is ethically repugnant, but not stopping it from actually becoming a person.
Am I understanding correctly?
"Here is the fundamental distinction: When circumcising a fetus, one doesn't know whether that future person will suffer; but, when killing that fetus, one knows for certain that no future person will suffer."
I see a problem with stopping a "fetus" from becoming a "future person."
Again, it can be argued that a born baby isn't a "person" yet. Is this line drawn at the birth canal?
"The false equivalence is entirely yours, and that is the point of the above sentiment; other statements are made to argue the stronger question we're dancing around."
While there is certainly a distinction in the fate of a fetus, the fetus continues to be the same fetus.
It doesn't make sense to me that there is an ethical problem in circumcising a fetus in-utero, but not in killing the same fetus.
"Accepting reality is being concerned for the living, not the dead."
Which an unborn is NOT.
Well. That is, until it's life is ended.
Perhaps bossy-squirrel puts it more succinctly below:
Delete"[E]veryone agrees that the newborn has a full complement of rights. The interests of the fetus are given increasingly more weight as the due date is approached. There is no debate about the baby. There is debate about the fetus. That is where the law now stands. It is a red herring, but one that keeps coming up. The pro-life people should want to protect the rights of the newborn, and the pro-choice people should want to protect his choice to control his own body."
We could go on and on about what we think about unborn feti, but bringing up the abortion debate is ridiculous, because a pro-circumcision stance is hypocritical no matter what side of the abortion debate you stand on.
As a pro-lifer, I see a disconnect between an objection of circumcising a fetus in-utero, but an approval of killing the same fetus.
It seems to be out of order to me, to be more concerned about the missing foreskin of a future person, but not his life.
Perhaps an unborn may not some people's definition of "person," but to me, whether or not some think an unborn is a person is irrelevant; if people believe that in-utero circumcision is unethical because it harms the man it is destined to become, then it only follows (at least to me) that killing an unborn fetus is wrong, because it is killing the person it is destined to become. If it's OK to kill a fetus "because it is not a person yet," then, according to some people's definition of "person," babies can be killed up to a certain date. There is no line.
I am a "pro-life."
You are "pro-choice."
You think killing an unborn is OK, because it doesn't fit your definition of "person," I think it's wrong regardless of whether or not people consider it a "person."
We both agree that forcibly circumcising a healthy, non-consenting individual is wrong.
I propose we just leave it at that and continue to fight together for what we agree on.
I am sorry that my posting has set you off the rails like this. When the pro-circumcision people start wanting to circumcise a fetus in the uterus, we will take up this issue. Certainly, the risk to the fetus and the mother to have an circumcision performed before birth would be unacceptable. My point is that everyone agrees that the newborn has a full complement of rights. The interests of the fetus are given increasingly more weight as the due date is approached. There is no debate about the baby. There is debate about the fetus. That is where the law now stands. It is a red herring, but one that keeps coming up. The pro-life people should want to protect the rights of the newborn, and the pro-choice people should want to protect his choice to control his own body.
ReplyDelete