I've heard libertarians wail against the practice of circumcision and demand it be made illegal. They complain that it's akin to assault, etc. Sure, I suppose, that argument could be made. But what if the child consents? Well, so it goes, he can't. He's just a baby, and not old enough to give "informed consent". My reply to this: What about feeding a child? Eating the wrong thing is far riskier to his life than circumcision. Should we not feed children until they are old enough to give "informed consent"? What would happen to the child then?
I think on circumcision, since it's something that's been done for thousands of years to no effect on life or limb, it's okay in my book. As my above retort demonstrates, the "informed consent" argument is just plain silly. It' s like piercing a baby's ears as well. My son was circumcised the day he was born, and my daughter had her ear's pierced at 3 months. Horrors! I'll ask their forgiveness when they're old enough to give "informed mercy".
In any event, by asking if it should be "illegal", libertarians are asking if it should be legislated against and enforced by the illegitimate entity known as "the state". Nothing should be "illegal" in that regard.
Loading
|
|
