corpus mentium Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 I guess this is one way to be more inclusive... Also, if you call it genital alteration, then that means it's not as bad. Sigh. http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/25/female-genital-alteration-legality
Kevin Beal Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 I really appreciated how it serves to bring male genital mutilation (MGM) to light. That part of the debate was encouraging. It is an interesting argument to say that FGM (female GM) would be safer if it were legal. It's the same kind of argument with prostitution. I accept it when it comes to prostitution, but I can't bring myself to support the legalization of mutilating children. I wonder if that's inconsistent on my part... Am I wrong about legalizing prostitution? Am I wrong about keeping FGM illegal? Or is it really different – and if so, how? If it's the fact that it's something which is immoral, when prostitution isn't immoral, then that is to say that there ought to be laws prohibiting immoral acts. But, I guess if there is no competition in dispute resolution allowed where it directly competes with government, then I guess that's the only choice I have – being that there is a government. These kinds of evil practices have to be combated somehow, and if DRO's aren't around, then I guess the government will have to do it. That just feels icky, as an anarchist. Ugh...
Jeridan Kowal Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 This is disgusting and ridiculous.It's like saying because some people get punched in the face everybody should get punched in the face.The "equalization" happening here is sending civilization backwards.
ThomasTheIdealist Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 If it's the fact that it's something which is immoral, when prostitution isn't immoral, then that is to say that there ought to be laws prohibiting immoral acts. But, I guess if there is no competition in dispute resolution allowed where it directly competes with government, then I guess that's the only choice I have – being that there is a government. These kinds of evil practices have to be combated somehow, and if DRO's aren't around, then I guess the government will have to do it. That just feels icky, as an anarchist. Ugh... That's very much a consequentialist dilemma. If you knew for certain that permitting some child rape would decrease the statistical average of child rapes (for whatever reason), would it be desirable to permit those rapes as opposed to doing nothing and maintaining the status quo? A small problem here is the premise of "having certainty", which is usually unrealistic especially in the face of unintended additional consequences. But assuming you do that have certainty with sufficient studies, the primary problem would be determining if you have exhausted all other (potentially better) options. But I'm not sure if the consideration of the latter should really prevent you from enabling relatively better policy. Otherwise it's a case of making the good the enemy of the perfect. Just because a solution has holes, doens't mean it shouldn't be preferred if the consequences are better.
Donnadogsoth Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 These bioethicists have obviously had strokes. Only their left side works. 1
AccuTron Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 The argument seems to be that some kinds of child FGA is desirable to begin with. If it's a child, then there is no possibility for informed consent. What the hell is the problem with waiting ten years or so, and let the adult woman choose? All I see here is a call to put child abuse in a more medically sound environment. Which will just make it more entrenched, more "okay to do."
Donnadogsoth Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 The argument seems to be that some kinds of child FGA is desirable to begin with. If it's a child, then there is no possibility for informed consent. What the hell is the problem with waiting ten years or so, and let the adult woman choose? All I see here is a call to put child abuse in a more medically sound environment. Which will just make it more entrenched, more "okay to do." If we persuade them to wait until the victim is older, wouldn't they just double-down on the brainwashing? How is it informed consent to do anything if your entire society is leaning on you, pressuring you, threatening you to do something? Very few people are such ubermensch that they can fight that.
AccuTron Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 If we persuade them to wait until the victim is older, wouldn't they just double-down on the brainwashing? How is it informed consent to do anything if your entire society is leaning on you, pressuring you, threatening you to do something? Very few people are such ubermensch that they can fight that. Good point.
wdiaz03 Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 .... I accept it when it comes to prostitution, but I can't bring myself to support the legalization of mutilating children. I wonder if that's inconsistent on my part... Am I wrong about legalizing prostitution? Am I wrong about keeping FGM illegal? Or is it really different – and if so, how? ... Key difference is that prostitution would occur between consenting adults. Why not wait until the child is an adult and after careful consideration of the pros and cons let he/she decide if they want to get their genitals altered. no different than tattoos or piercings.
Kevin Beal Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 Key difference is that prostitution would occur between consenting adults. Why not wait until the child is an adult and after careful consideration of the pros and cons let he/she decide if they want to get their genitals altered. no different than tattoos or piercings. I just wanted to mention that I fully accept this argument. People should be the ones to choose whether or not to have their genitals altered / mutilated. That's why I liked the discussion of circumcision in the article, because this argument was brought up. Ultimately, I concluded the same thing that you did, because I said the difference was a moral one. It's just that if we were to ignore the principled argument, the argument from effect may actually be a valid one (I don't know for sure). If I were a consequentialist, then I may have to take the pro-mutilation side seriously. That's interesting to me because people who consider prostitution to be immoral, but accept it anyway for safety reasons (e.x. christian libertarians), then those same kinds of people would logically be compelled to consider the arguments in the article, for the same reason. People who think that prostitution is immoral or otherwise a bad thing should be susceptible to such an argument, in order to stay logically consistent. Personally, I would trust my gut over a seemingly compelling argument in favor of the mutilation of children. I just think it's interesting is all. Their arguments sound to me like bullshit cultural relativism. It's the debate tactic that interests me.
Recommended Posts