69 million page views

This is the radical feminist left obsession with what they term "consent".

Reader comment on item: In Defense of Europe's "Far-Right" Parties
in response to reader comment: Banning circumcision is not antisemitic

Submitted by Anon (United States), Nov 6, 2018 at 18:14

And because feminists are obsessed with the term (just as they and leftwing hardliners are obsessed with the term "equality") they imagine they won the argument by using that term.

I don't care about the term. I care about what is reasonable. The notion that you or some stranger cares more about the babies than all their parents, strikes me as ridiculous. I don't view children as belonging to the state and given to their parents to keep. I regard them as belonging to their parents. I do not think circumcision is unreasonable and practically nobody complains to their parents as adults for having been circumscised as a baby. In fact, young adults tend to blame their parents for countless things, but this is not one of them.

I'd say that live and let live, means leaving the parents alone. They would need to do something much more extreme to their children in order for a state to intervene.

Again, if you're one of those who think using the term "consent" means you've won the argument, then you will hardly see things from my point of view. By the way, children don't consent to zillions of things, but parents have a duty to make them do it, whether it's going to school, doing their homework, eating their vegetables, refraining from watching too much tv, and so on and so forth. This minor essentially cosmetic surgery means the world to the parents and should not bother any sane individual who would be advised to mind his own business and find problems of his own to take care of.
However, the desire to get rid of their vast and rapidly growing Muslim population is so intense that such measures may well be taken, ostensibly by do-gooders who can't make do with minding their own business and pretend to care for these babies lives more than their parents do, but actually simply as a means to an end, because this particular end is so very important.

One can make a similar argument regarding Halal/Kosher. Any supposed cruelty attached to traditional slaughter is surely infinitesimal in comparison to the cruelty of being raising animals for slaughter in the first place, and some who wish for such prohibitions would surely want to entirely prohibit people from eating animals and even to prohibit them from milking cows or raising chickens for their eggs, but for the most part, those behind the proposals to ban traditional slaughter are simply hoping to gain back their countries.


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)