3 ms·

There's a clear line between stopping reproduction and intentionally inducing disabilities. I'm going to put it another way. Does this really pass your own per

by esyir 5y ago

There's a clear line between stopping reproduction and intentionally inducing disabilities. I'm going to put it another way. Does this really pass your own personal sanity check? That parents should be allowed to: - Amputate their children's limbs (Various developmental defects - Remove their children's eyes (Blindness) - Perforate their children's eardrums (Deafness) - Remove their tongue / vocal chords (Mutes) - Paralyze their kids (Various forms of musculoskeletal issues) - Inflict brain damage on their kids (various forms of intellectual disabilities)

ghuin 5y ago
Or remove their foreskins :')
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  There are medical reasons for the removal of foreskins such as phimosis [1]. Inasmuch as I would agree that religious justifications for circumcision are the ramblings of a cargo cult, circumcision itself was and is (for now at least) not without value. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis
  - ghuin 5y ago
    There also could be medical reasons for the removal of arms. That doesn't mean parents should be allowed to remove the arms of their children as they are born.
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      If there's a medical reason to amputate an arm and if it would be appropriate to attend to it immediately after birth so that no long-term complications arise from a delay in action, a parent should acquiesce to it. If parents shouldn't make that decision then who should?
- esyir 5y ago
  That too. I left it out intentionally as while I personally think it's in the same category, it's unfortunately sufficiently normalized as to pass without question.
klipt 5y ago
No, but should a deaf woman be allowed to choose sperm from a deaf donor? That's actually happened, the baby was born deaf, and the mom was thrilled.
- esyir 5y ago
  Fantastic grey area. Here, I'd probably have that be legal. Not because I approve of it, but because the alternative, regulating who gets to reproduce, is worse.

by esyir 5y ago

ghuin 5y ago

Or remove their foreskins :')

Dracophoenix 5y ago
There are medical reasons for the removal of foreskins such as phimosis [1]. Inasmuch as I would agree that religious justifications for circumcision are the ramblings of a cargo cult, circumcision itself was and is (for now at least) not without value. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis
- ghuin 5y ago
  There also could be medical reasons for the removal of arms. That doesn't mean parents should be allowed to remove the arms of their children as they are born.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    If there's a medical reason to amputate an arm and if it would be appropriate to attend to it immediately after birth so that no long-term complications arise from a delay in action, a parent should acquiesce to it. If parents shouldn't make that decision then who should?
esyir 5y ago
That too. I left it out intentionally as while I personally think it's in the same category, it's unfortunately sufficiently normalized as to pass without question.

klipt 5y ago

No, but should a deaf woman be allowed to choose sperm from a deaf donor? That's actually happened, the baby was born deaf, and the mom was thrilled.

esyir 5y ago
Fantastic grey area. Here, I'd probably have that be legal. Not because I approve of it, but because the alternative, regulating who gets to reproduce, is worse.