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?

[AdHoc]

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?

Parent's, IMO, have a responsibility to make decisions for their children until they reach an age that they can decide for themselves. This means providing food, shelter, health and education. I'm surprized that you would compare circumcision to D&C. Do you really believe that these topics are comparable?

[Waiways]

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.

[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.

[Goat]

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.

[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?

[Darias]

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?

I personally think that this is one of the most difficult moral questions of our day. I'm a strong believer in individual rights and in human rights, so this is difficult for me.

First, I believe the life of the mother should always come first.

I do not believe that a zygote is a human being or an American citizen. I do not believe that after a man has unprotected sex with a woman for the first time that a third person suddenly appears in the room with them.

But I also find it a bit too convenient, nay dishonest to claim that an infant that has not yet taken breath is neither alive nor human. That is nothing but an arbitrary line one takes to avoid discomfort in arguing for women's rights.

It is clear to me that the closer and closer the fetus comes to being born, the more human-like it appears, the more difficult the idea of being comfortable with an abortion is.

And late term abortions, except in the case where the mother's life is at stake should be illegal with certain exceptions. I've also heard of post birth abortions; both of these are equally disgusting. But sometimes to save the life of the mother, even the former is necessary.

I also understand however, that it is not my life or my body at stake. I am a man, not a woman, so I can never understand what it is like to have to make that choice. It would be shameful for me to belittle women who've gone through this; but it is equally shameful for me to forget to acknowledge that abortions, especially late term abortions, are terminating life which could soon be a baby, and life which could exist independent of the mother if given the chance.

For the sake of women's rights and women's lives, I favor legal and safe abortions, but personally I am pro-life.

I believe firmly that abstinence with a box of condoms nearby in case you give in, along with awareness of safe sex procedures would do much to make abortions rare, and thus no longer a national debate.

But in the mean time, if our consciences are not groaning over these questions, there is indeed something very wrong.

[Goat]

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.

[Darias]

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.

I'm not sure what stage of development you're referring to, but if your definition applies to the fetus 7 minutes before it's first breath, I just don't see how breathing oxygen makes you a person. A fetus that well developed is but a few moments away from being labeled "an infant." Considering it an "egg/sperm," is like calling a zygote a "man."

[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.

I'm not sure what stage of development you're referring to, but if your definition applies to the fetus 7 minutes before it's first breath, I just don't see how breathing oxygen makes you a person. A fetus that well developed is but a few moments away from being labeled "an infant." Considering it an "egg/sperm," is like calling a zygote a "man."

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