[lbo-talk] on circumcision

andie_nachgeborenen andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 3 07:56:29 PDT 2012


Changes the subject. The issue was whether circumcision could caused PTSD via repressed memories, not whether it caused pain then and there that the infant experienced. I never made the argument you attribute to me. And wouldn't, because I'm not a fool. Please don't stalk staw men. It is a waste of everybody's time.

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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list