Just changed my first cut baby :( - Page 2

[Storm Bride]

I have no idea what ear pinning or limb lengthening are, so I can't comment on those.

As for a can of worms...I don't see how. It's illegal to cut a little girl's genitals, which doesn't seem to have opened any can of worms. IMO, a case can probably be made for parents having the right to choose a cosmetic procedure to correct a birth defect (ie. something very rare). I don't see how any case can be made for parents having the right to choose a cosmetic procedure to remove a normal, fully functioning part of the body. Being born without a foreskin is a birth defect, not being born with one! I just don't see where there's any can of worms in making this illegal. I can't decide to cut off my child's fingers, toes, ears or lips, or my little gir's genitalia, because I think they'll "look better" that way (not that I think so!)...why is an exception made for a little boy's genitalia?

[mama24-7]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

I have no idea what ear pinning or limb lengthening are, so I can't comment on those.

As for a can of worms...I don't see how. It's illegal to cut a little girl's genitals, which doesn't seem to have opened any can of worms. IMO, a case can probably be made for parents having the right to choose a cosmetic procedure to correct a birth defect (ie. something very rare). I don't see how any case can be made for parents having the right to choose a cosmetic procedure to remove a normal, fully functioning part of the body. Being born without a foreskin is a birth defect, not being born with one! I just don't see where there's any can of worms in making this illegal. I can't decide to cut off my child's fingers, toes, ears or lips, or my little gir's genitalia, because I think they'll "look better" that way (not that I think so!)...why is an exception made for a little boy's genitalia?

not having gone back to see the original post re can of worms, perhaps the person is speaking about other aspects that are out of the scope of TCAC?

sus

[langdonslady]

Agreed, and it does give me the willies, how many people have the first reaction of "there ought to be a law!" when they don't agree with someone else's choices about their own families, especially when they start championing laws that remove the right of the parents to make medical and other legal decisions for their own children, but place that responsibility in the hands of the State instead.

I have an intact son, and my husband's mother wanted him left intact, but he was circumcised against her expressed wishes, in the hospital, in 1970.
Hospitals still do things over parental objections (and even the objections of an adult patient about their own body!) all too often, and all too often get away with it.

I just wish more people were aware of the kind of totalitarianism they unknowingly support when they wish for more laws to take decisions out of the hands of parents "for the good of the child". What happens when the State decides that vaccinations are the right of the child instead of bodily integrity? What if you disagree with that? What if, like in some countries, the State has decided that the State-run schools are in the best interest of the child, and the parents have no right to disagree or choose how their children will be educated, or treated medically? This exact scenario is real, and does happen.

I know most of, if not all of, the people here are against totalitarianism, and probably don't realize that the attitude of wishing that other parents' choices were illegal, supports exactly that.

[jenP]

Originally Posted by langdonslady

I know most of, if not all of, the people here are against totalitarianism, and probably don't realize that the attitude of wishing that other parents' choices were illegal, supports exactly that.

There has to be a balance between a parent's right of conscience/right to make choices and the child's basic human rights.
The crazy part is the idea that circumcision is a "parental decision" at ALL. Here we have a healthy, whole baby. Why does a "decision" need to be made about cutting his penis? Do the parents have to make a "decision" about whether or not to cut his ears or toes or lips? Would it be totalitarian if the state actually did not allow the parents to cut off the baby's earlobe?

Now in the case where the child may have a medical problem requiring treatment, the parents do indeed need to make a decision about which type of treatment may be the most appropriate for their child. Sometimes surgery may be their choice. But in the case of a healthy baby, parents do NOT need to make a "decision" of whether or not to have surgery performed on that infant.

As previous posters have pointed out, it is already illegal to make so much as a pinprick in the genitals of a minor girl. I'm curious if you see that as the state excessively interfering in family decisions. Do you believe parents should have the right to make a tiny ceremonial poke in their daughter's genitals? Do you believe they should have the right to actually trim just a little bit off of their daughter's labia? Or even a lot? Are we in a totalitarian state because those actions are currently illegal, or do you believe those laws are appropriate because they protect baby girls from harm?
I am not asking rhetorically, I really would like to learn about where you are coming from.

Jen

[larzanna]

i am practically a libertarian..... HATE gov. in my life.
That being said...if its going to be illegal to cut a baby girl, then it needs to be illegal to cut a baby boy.
I do not think that it should be illegal for an adult. They should be allowed to make ANY decision about their own body.
Just wanted to clarify since this thread got a little weird about the legality part of my OP.