Abortion, Circumcision, and Hypocrisy

[Waiways]

Abortion, Circumcision, and Hypocrisy

Some time ago, a question occurred to me: If Anti-abortion (pro-life) supporters argued under the assumption that unborn children had certain rights, (in this case, the right to life) does it constitute hypocrisy if the same person has his or her child circumcised shortly after birth, when the child is incapable of consenting to said operation?

So the questions for debate are as follows:

Does circumcision violate the rights of an infant?

Should cosmetic surgery on infants (excluding reconstructive cosmetic surgery) be considered unethical?

Does it constitute hypocrisy to be both pro-life and have his or her child circumcised?

[Darias]

It is the difference between someone who is a live, or potentially alive, and one who is dead is just a sharp cutoff too. Mind you.. a fetus that is that close to deliver is SOOO close to being a living , breathing person. At that point, I am sure that the vast majority of fetus' are viable. I would put more value on a viable fetus than one that isn't viable.. my own personal idiosyncrasy.

Well I agree, the closer it comes to being born, the harder it is to be comfortable with the abortion procedure.

But.. if it isn't breathing,it isn't a person.

That's an arbitrary distinction and you know it. It's like when someone says, this person isn't an adult until the very day they turn 18. Of course the usefulness of that distinction isn't a matter for this discussion; the idea that it isn't a person until it draws breath is ridiculous. A person who stops breathing doesn't cease to be a person until they die. The viability of that fetus and the immanency of its birth and the fact that it is alive and fully developed indicates to me that the womb is not necessarily a special zone where people don't exist. It indicates to me that there is no magical gateway or mystical barrier that transforms that fetus into a person. Usually the baby doesn't breath until up to 40 seconds after the umbilical cord is cut. Sometimes the doctor has to jostle it slightly, slap it on the rear, if you will... then it becomes a person as you say... when the magical hand of the doctor imparts person-hood on the fetus via a gentle tap. You've got to be kidding me.

[Goat]

It is the difference between someone who is a live, or potentially alive, and one who is dead is just a sharp cutoff too. Mind you.. a fetus that is that close to deliver is SOOO close to being a living , breathing person. At that point, I am sure that the vast majority of fetus' are viable. I would put more value on a viable fetus than one that isn't viable.. my own personal idiosyncrasy.

Well I agree, the closer it comes to being born, the harder it is to be comfortable with the abortion procedure.

But.. if it isn't breathing,it isn't a person.

That's an arbitrary distinction and you know it. It's like when someone says, this person isn't an adult until the very day they turn 18. Of course the usefulness of that distinction isn't a matter for this discussion; the idea that it isn't a person until it draws breath is ridiculous. A person who stops breathing doesn't cease to be a person until they die. The viability of that fetus and the immanency of its birth and the fact that it is alive and fully developed indicates to me that the womb is not necessarily a special zone where people don't exist. It indicates to me that there is no magical gateway or mystical barrier that transforms that fetus into a person. Usually the baby doesn't breath until up to 40 seconds after the umbilical cord is cut. Sometimes the doctor has to jostle it slightly, slap it on the rear, if you will... then it becomes a person as you say... when the magical hand of the doctor imparts person-hood on the fetus via a gentle tap. You've got to be kidding me.

Isn't any distinction arbitrary?? No. I am not kidding you at all. It is a nice , hard and fast principle. ,,that is when a fetus becomes a baby, at birth. Now, when it comes to aboriton, I would more than willing to restrict it to needing medical reasons after a certain point..

Did you know that while the survival rate of premies is up , the percentage of those premature babies that have strong medical issues their entire life, such as retardation, blind, unable to walk, etc etc etc has stayed steady at 20% of them (for premature babies at 22 to 24 weeks).

[Waiways]

@adhoc, Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing what the child wants regarding circumcision at such an early age, so parents may have to wait until their kids are of an age where they can make that decision with full knowledge of the operation. Also, I do not personally know of anyone whose life was horribly affected by circumcision, but the world's a big place.

As for the issue of when a fetus becomes a person, IMHO, is the moment it achieves neural activity, which is the least arbitrary and most logical distinction I have considered so far.

[AdHoc]

I do believe they are comparable, because they are both question of the rights of the child vs. the right of the parent to make decisions for the child. The problem, IMO, is that sometimes parents can make bad decisions for their child and the child should have rights to protect them and it is quite difficult to decide where religion should stand. If a religion were to require more extreme changes to a child's body, disallowing that may be considered a violation of freedom of religion, but allowing that might be a violation of the child’s rights.

Ok that's a fair point but how would you suggest that a parent check with an infant to see if they want to be circumcised? Do you know of anyone that says their life was horribly affected by circumcision?

Abortion on the other hand is a termination of the life of the unborn. I'm pretty sure we can assume what the child would want in that case.

A fetus is not yet intelligent, so it certainly doesn't have 'wants' at that point. It certainly is not a living, breathing being yet.

So you believe that a child only starts to breathe, live and think at the moment of birth? If the facts were otherwise would it change how you view abortion?
If it "certainly isn't a living, breathing being" what is it?

It is a potential living , breathing being.. it is not a living/breathing being yet. It's more than an egg/sperm, yet less than a person.

Not a living/breathing being??? Growing, beating heart, moving, respiration... are these not indicators of life and breath?

[AdHoc]

@adhoc, Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing what the child wants regarding circumcision at such an early age, so parents may have to wait until their kids are of an age where they can make that decision with full knowledge of the operation.

This would likely reduce the amount of circumcisions drastically

Also, I do not personally know of anyone whose life was horribly affected by circumcision, but the world's a big place.

As for the issue of when a fetus becomes a person, IMHO, is the moment it achieves neural activity, which is the least arbitrary and most logical distinction I have considered so far.

Fair enough

[Goat]

It is a potential living , breathing being.. it is not a living/breathing being yet. It's more than an egg/sperm, yet less than a person.

Not a living/breathing being??? Growing, beating heart, moving, respiration... are these not indicators of life and breath?[/quote]


Air going into the lungs.. for mammals, is breathing. After a period of time, a fetus can potentially breath, but it's not breathing yet. After 22 yweeks, if you have a LOT of special care, many premature babies can breath. .. with LOTS of intensive care, you can get 53% of them to live. .. although 20% of those premature babies have very sever defects, such as mental retardation, blind, heart problems, the inability to ever walk, etc etc etc. .. and many have other problems their entire lives.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Do you know of anyone that says their life was horribly affected by circumcision?

"Manchester baby boy 'bled to death after circumcision'"

[bluethread]

Do you know of anyone that says their life was horribly affected by circumcision?

"Manchester baby boy 'bled to death after circumcision'"

"A four-week-old boy "bled to death" after a home circumcision carried out by a nurse, a court has heard.

Goodluck Caubergs died the day after nurse Grace Adeleye carried out the procedure without anaesthetic, Manchester Crown Court was told.

The jury heard the 66-year-old only used scissors, forceps and olive oilat an address in Chadderton, Greater Manchester in April 2010."

Does the term malpractice ring a bell. This is hardly Brit Milah.

[AdHoc]

@adhoc, Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing what the child wants regarding circumcision at such an early age, so parents may have to wait until their kids are of an age where they can make that decision with full knowledge of the operation. Also, I do not personally know of anyone whose life was horribly affected by circumcision, but the world's a big place.

As for the issue of when a fetus becomes a person, IMHO, is the moment it achieves neural activity, which is the least arbitrary and most logical distinction I have considered so far.

How do you feel about women choosing to smoke or drink heavily while they are pregnant? Do you think that is ethically better, worse or the same as a woman who chooses to have her son circumcised?

[Nickman]

Does circumcision violate the rights of an infant?

To most parents, children have no rights. I don't mean this as a conscious claim by parents but their actions are opposed to children having rights. Parents choose what they "think" is best and in most instances they do know. When it comes to circumcision, parents are ill-informed and most have their children circumcised via tradition. The scientific community is unanimous that circumcision has no benefit over letting the penis grow naturally. There are zero side effects to allowing the penis to grow naturally, yet there are many risks and side effects of circumcision. So to answer the question, would the specific child in question in each instance choose circumcision, given all the risks and benefits? Probably not. So, in a sense we could say that there is a violation of rights. The same way that it is the right of every person to decide if they want surgery or not.

Should cosmetic surgery on infants (excluding reconstructive cosmetic surgery) be considered unethical?

Does it constitute hypocrisy to be both pro-life and have his or her child circumcised?

You would think that pro-life would consist of the child being born 100% natural, yet it is ok to mutilate the genitals of males as a norm without any reason based on benefitial circumstances. There is no reason to circumcise a child other than tradition. The natural growth of the penis is the most beneficial. There are zero side effects.