(1) I'm not sure why A's interest in B's religion should give
A the right to alter B's body - even if A is B's parent.
(2) As to "the sons' own interest in conforming to their
religion," I don't think it's "their religion" at age 8 days, at least under
what should be the secular legal system's understanding of religion (the
subject's own belief system).
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Brian Landsberg
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 9:22 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Equivocal evidence, and the right to choose
Why consider only medical costs and benefits and ignore the parents' interest
in the religious upbringing of their sons and the sons' own interest in
conforming to their religion?
As to harms, shouldn't the burden be on the proponent of banning the procedure?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 7, 2012, at 3:40 PM, "Volokh, Eugene"
<vol...@law.ucla.edu<mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu>> wrote:
Part of the reason, I think, is that irreversible decisions
should, when possible, be left to the adult that the child will become; and
while lack of circumcision is painful to reverse in adulthood, it's possible,
while circumcision is at the very least much harder to reverse effectively.
Consider a few analogies. It's not unreasonable for adults to
tattoo themselves; it's not my choice, but a substantial minority of people do
it. Yet I think California law is right to bar all tattooing of minors,
regardless of parental authorization - and it was even more correct when
tattoos were very hard to reverse. It's true that this is a decision by the
state, but it's a decision that increases the decisionmaking authority of the
adult that the child will become.
At the other extreme, it's not unreasonable for adults to get
vasectomies or have their fallopian tubes tied - it's much rarer, especially in
people who have no children at all, but it does happen. Indeed, it may have
some benefits, because it decreases the risk of pregnancy; and it can even
provide some benefit to a teenage minor. Plus if a child has especially
serious genetic conditions, deciding on such a surgery may be especially
plausible. But I take it that parents would generally not be allowed to order
such a surgery on their children (setting aside exceptional circumstances, such
as when a child is mentally retarded, sexually active, and likely to get
pregnant without such surgery), again because that is a decision that should be
made by the adult that the child will become.
The same argument, I think, could be made about circumcision,
depending on the evidence about medical costs and benefits (the case for
allowing parents to decide becomes stronger when there are serious medical
benefits) and on the evidence about whether circumcision indeed causes
sufficient loss of sexual sensation.
Eugene
Brian Landsberg writes:
In the case of a newborn the possible decision makers are the parents and the
state. Why should we trust the state's judgment more than the parents' on an
issue as to which reasonable minds can differ?
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
