cul heath wrote:
either you consider an infant a person or you don't.it seems most do not. certainly the law deos not see children as persons but as property.
Although there has been 'talk' of making child prosititutes 'victims' in law, i believe it is still the case that they are 'criminals'.
if you do not, then the infant is no more than property.
if you do, then individual rights must be afforded an infant and he or she should not be subject to the whims of parental or cultural affectations without prior consent. its obvious that parents should not act as proxies for the will of the infant in matters of irreversible physical alterations that are not life-threatening or grossly debilitating.
because I consider an infant to be a person and therefore not the "property" of the parents, i consider any circumcision of an infant, outside of medically necessary interventions, a direct violent assault which should be illegal.
need i say I toatlly agree with you?
cul
