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?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 58 by 10CC]

And if your god exists and created everything then millions die everyday because of the way he created humans. No contest really, is there?

Nothing to do with this discussion but thanks anyway.

Well it actually addresses two of the three subjects mentioned in the OP. Abortion and hypocrisy and as such is extremely relevant to the discussion. You're welcome.

No to the discussion it was having with me.
Kudos for trying though

[Darias]

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?

Circumcision is male genital mutilation that under certain circumstances kills the child or infects him; unlike female genital mutilation, this practice is widely accepted outside of religious circles, largely because men are seen as expendable and always have been. Any choice to pierce, cut, tattoo, mutilate, or modify the body should be made in adulthood with all risks being accepted by that person.

Reconstructive surgery may be necessary in certain cases to make the life easier for the child, such as fixing a cleft palate, but certainly not if it threatens the child's life.

And yes pro-lifers who argue for rights and then subject their children to mutilation so people like Lisa Lampanelli won't be offended at the sight of "nature's condom" later in life are being... I prefer the term inconsistent.

[wotsupdoc]

[Replying to post 67 by 10CC]

I would like to commend you on such a productive post. Thank you for your erudition!

Your most welcome.

[wotsupdoc]

[Replying to post 68 by 10CC]

I would like to commend you on such a productive post. Thank you for your erudition!

Your most welcome.

[wotsupdoc]

[Replying to post 69 by 10CC]

I would like to commend you on such a productive post. Thank you for your erudition!

You are most welcome.

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 1 by Waiways]

Waiways wrote:

So the questions for debate are as follows:

Does circumcision violate the rights of an infant?

What makes you think an infant has rights?

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

What is ethical?

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

If there is hypocrisy involved, where is the false pretense? Where is the pretending to be what one is not?

Hypocrite: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

Indeed, where is the hypocrisy?

[10CC]

What makes you think an infant has rights?

They don't have any more rights than a foetus. So lets kill them.

[Sonofason]

What makes you think an infant has rights?

They don't have any more rights than a foetus. So lets kill them.

No, God says, "Thou shalt not commit murder" It has nothing to do with rights, but the will of God that we ought not kill one another.

[Goat]

What makes you think an infant has rights?

They don't have any more rights than a foetus. So lets kill them.

No, God says, "Thou shalt not commit murder" It has nothing to do with rights, but the will of God that we ought not kill one another.

What is murder but the 'unlawful' killing of another human being.

In Numbers 5, there is a procedure given to give a woman a chemically induced miscarriage. So much for it being unlawful.

[Sonofason]

What makes you think an infant has rights?

They don't have any more rights than a foetus. So lets kill them.

No, God says, "Thou shalt not commit murder" It has nothing to do with rights, but the will of God that we ought not kill one another.

What is murder but the 'unlawful' killing of another human being.

In Numbers 5, there is a procedure given to give a woman a chemically induced miscarriage. So much for it being unlawful.

Well, the King James says, "thou shalt not kill" Other translations say "thou shalt not commit murder" What it means is this. Thou shalt not intentionally take away the life of an innocent human being who is not guilty of a crime that is punishable by death.

I'm sorry, I see no connection between the curse described in Numbers 5 and miscarriages. But you are certainly free to interpret anything however you like.

I know I do.