What i’ve learned:
Violently mutilating the child’s genitals without his consent is completely justified (almost a duty!); however, if the child consents to oral pleasure, he is obviously unfit to make such decisions, per the parent’s infinite wisdom (mutilated genitals notwithstanding).
This is why transient cultural aesthetics have no good place in important ethical discussions.
For me, the line is whether the procedure has any short- or long-term medical benefits. No, you cannot simply cut off your child’s arm on a whim, simply because they are your property. You also must take into consideration the damage inflicted versus the possible benefits.
I can’t believe you, and others, equate circumcision with violent genital mutilation. There is no medical reason behind genital mutilation…it is simply a means for a male-dominated culture to supress women. Same goes for foot binding. Comparing those and other similar procedures to circumcision is like comparing clipping your toenails to chopping off your feet.
Then Let your kid circumsize himself when he needs it.
Here’s a question then,
What justifies the parents having a monopoly on the raising of a child?
Circumcision is an interesting topic.
Considering that full grown adults willingly get the procedures I don’t see how you can call it universally abusive. This situation seems to be best handled with Rothbard’s method for determining the legitimacy of police coercion.
We may qualify this discussion in one important sense: police may use such coercive methods provided that the suspect turns out to be guilty, and provided that the police are treated as themselves criminal if the suspect is not proven guilty. For, in that case, the rule of no force against non-criminals would still apply.
Parents can circumcise their child so long as the child does not object after he is grown.
Ultimately, circumcision is no different than many other procedures. They are, literally, violent and involve risk. Procedures done to save lives and those done to alter lifestyles are not objectively different. People only hold life saving procedures to be different because they assume that everyone would consent to them, though that is not actually the case.
Until the child is able to object, homesteading.
Children are persons, not property.
No they aren’t. The doctor or midwife proforming delivery has full ability to whisk your child away and homestead it before you can.
Even though its been inside your wife for 9 months? Interesting.
Quiet, the adults are talking.
Then what prevents conflict between two people claiming the same baby? Clearly there must be a system to determine who is the legitimate parent, thus we can say that one has a property right over the baby.
People are self owning because they demonstrate that they. People who do not demonstrate the power of self determination, like infants and vegetables, must neccessarily be treated differently under the law. This is not abusive towards them, it is a more humane solution than expecting them to function as a normal adult.
If a retard comes into your house and you let it eat your food have you homesteaded it?
EDIT: Ahh nevermind, I see the fallacy
Let’s see. Forcing children to attend church may be, perhaps, an example of humanism at work ?
Dodge and Weave.
People have as much self ownership as they demonstrate. An infant demonstrates its ability to live, so no one is allowed to kill it; and similarly no one is allowed to violate its person. However, an infant is not able to care for itself, and unable to object in meaningful way to being cared for, so a parent is allowed to use their own discretion to care for it.
For the mentally deficient the same applies. A vegetable can not be killed, but person who the strongest claim is allowed to determine the care he receives. If that person chooses not to care for them, then we can consider the person to be unclaimed and any charitable person can take over that duty. If no takers are found, he will die.
In the case of a “retard” he probably could form consent so this discussion is pretty unnecessary. If the “retard” that entered your house was not able to form consent and was uncared for, you could claim him as a ward. I’d consider that as an improvement over him being homeless, wouldn’t you?
There is no “force” involved if the child wishes to remain under the protection of the parent. Requiring your child go to church in order to reap the benefits of your labor (Funding, housing) is completely humane.
Parents force children to do lots of things. Children complain, but ultimately, they prefer to do those things over being an orphan.
Of course we are talking about infants, if anyone is being abused its the other people in the church.
Making child go to church or eating vegetables is a seperate issue from guardianship over infants. Children are able to control where they walk or what they eat. Infants are not, thats the difference.
I was not talking about infants - but children. Now, people living under totalitarian states are forced to do lots of things. Subjects complain, but ultimately they prefer to live instead of being shot. I guess they are free after all.
Almost forgot to say this.
Imagine a woman has a child and then abandons it. The child is adopted by a couple who raise it, but a year later the woman decides she wants it back. Who gets the baby? The homesteading principle says the adoptive parents do, atleast until the child is able to determine for himself who he wants to live with.
I find this to be the most just outcome. If not for the adoptive parents the child would be dead and the woman whould not have the option of demanding it back.
Yeah, just like in capitalism the workers are abused, etc.
Not analogous.
No one suggested shooting children and if people were allowed to reject the state’s authority over them our job would be done, wouldn’t it?
Who’s doing the shooting?
The cops & the military - why ?