Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was thinking of a child who is born with [condition you acknowledge as a deformity]. Is plastic surgery to fix that justifiable?
is plastic surgery even possible at that age? doesn't the body need to be at some level of maturation before it would work?
but in general, no, so long as it doesn't cause persistent problems in the child's development, I can't really condone "making your child look nicer" any more than I can say "all children with developmental delays should be killed". I know that is a huge extreme, but I think the logic is sort of the same. It isn't the parent's choice in this case, or, at least wait until they are an age where the child has some sense of what is going to happen. Even 4-5 years gives enough time for basic cognition and reasoning skills.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I happen to agree that circumcision should need a medical justification but I find it hard to fit into the other medical rights parents have over children. Take the National Association of the Deaf, they consider cochlear implants to be both mutilation and "cultural genocide",
being deaf really isn't that problematic, so long as there is sign language infrastructure, so I might be against such a thing in infancy, though, I think an argument can be made for its justification, and neuroplasticity would suggest the earlier such a surgery could be done, the better
however, the NAD's position is clearly idiotic. Nothing is stopping someone from having their implants removed, if they really want to be part of deaf culture. Nothing is stopping me from deafening myself intentionally. hell, I could be part of blind "culture" if I wanted to.
as much as people hate talking about "normal", for someone with a background in perceptual psychology, the idea that a deaf person is "normal" is nonsense. It is clearly an aberration from typical human function, and a disability in that one of their sensory organs or associated neuro-architecture is not functioning properly, if at all. In fact, the only reason I would be hesitant about such implants in children is because society has taken steps to accommodate people without hearing. In a less egalitarian society, the justification for such a procedure would be overwhelming.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I suspect you could find a similarly extreme neo-hippie group that considers giving haircuts to be mutilation.
yes, but now we are getting into things like "spirituality". Theoretically, not being circumcised might make you go to Hell, so radical Christians might argue that way. an evidence based approach makes all such complaints moot, though, in this case, I can't see any harm in not cutting a child's hair, so have at it hippies
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What qualifies as mutilation is *highly* subjective and it seems to me that the only standard is that we forbid things that are objectively harmful to the child (where harmful is sort of vague). Circumcision has, as far as I can tell, fairly minor effects in terms of good and bad.
sure, there is subjectivity in everything, but rather than banning what is harmful, why not look at it as justifying the benefit of the practice.
while there may not be any long-term harm associated with circumcision, there is certainly no benefit, and a foreskin, unless in rare cases, really doesn't interfere with day to day function for the child. Therefore, with no good reason to do it, it probably shouldn't be done