Sent from my iPad
On Sep 3, 2012, at 9:27 AM, Somebody Somebody <philos_case at yahoo.com> wrote:
> andie: Why have you read a lot of this stuff? You know it's neuropsychologically impossible for a newborn to be scarred by, comprehend, or remember anything that happens in the first few months of life. Birth itself would be far more traumatic than circumcision, so we'd all have PTSD, right?
>
> ...
>
> You do realize this argument for circumcision also makes the abuse of newborns morally permissible, don't you? Even Peter Singer, who argues for the right to euthanize newborns (since they do not yet have the rationality and self-awareness required to understand themselves as beings existing over time) doesn't agree with physically assaulting them (since they are still sentient like other animals).
>
> You can still make utilitarian argument for circumcision. But suggesting that their pain doesn't matter because they can't remember it means anything goes, as long as the parents agree.
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk