Rabbi Sucks Baby's Penis And Gives Him Herpes

[rosends]

Or their licensing authority just isn't aware.


Direct mouth-to-penis contact would be worse, but neither would be particularly sanitary.

... though since we're talking about doctors who are willing to do unnecessary cosmetic surgery on an infant, we're not exactly talking about doctors who clear a high ethical bar.

You mean a bar of your setting. You have already decided that a licensing body isn't aware because that's what makes sense to you. If you ran the world, no doubt things would be different. But you don't, and your rules and sensibility aren't synonymous with everyone else's.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You mean a bar of your setting.

They don't clear my personal ethical bar, no, but speaking objectively, it's more ethical not to subject children to body modification when they're so young that they don't have the capacity to consent to it than it is to subject them to body modification.

You have already decided that a licensing body isn't aware because that's what makes sense to you.

I didn't decide that, actually.

If you ran the world, no doubt things would be different. But you don't, and your rules and sensibility aren't synonymous with everyone else's.

Infant circumcision is clearly unethical and harmful. Where rules come into it is with where we draw the line to say "anything more unethical and harmful than this isn't allowed."

Just because infant circumcision is - for now - on the legal side of the line doesn't mean that it's praiseworthy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would have thought that all of these points would be non-controversial:

- don't hurt babies needlessly.

- only do cosmetic body modification on people who consent.

- if you're going to do minor sugery on someone, don't deliberately contaminate the incision.

... but here we are with people defending why they should disregard all of these points.