Parents- A Fable
Once upon a time- [I write this so you know it is an original fiction fable-] two boys graduated high school. One was named Scree and the other was named Windol. Scree married his girlfriend Glas because his close friend windol dared him to ask her if she would marry. Glas was happy that her long-time friend finally showed commitment.
Soon Glas was pregnant with her first child. she was very happy but windol was very jealous. he had no girl friend and no wife and no child and no interest to commit to anyone.
he dared scree to cut his baby's left cheek.
scree was horrified at the idea of cutting his baby. but windol pressured him and called him a chicken if he would not
scree waited until right after the birth and when the nurse handed him the baby he slashed at the baby's cheek with a plastic knife.
the nurse tried to jump back but was not fast enough and the baby's cheek was cut.
evil horrible act.
when the doctors came and accused the father his defense was ready: "I see no difference between my authority as parent to circumcise my baby and this cut, if I may cut my baby with circumcision with no issue of violence nor saexual abuse, certainly a cheek wich has no issue of said abuse, is even less severe."
the moral is: although we hope no court would agree, it is difficult to isolate the difference between cutting a healthy baby just to remove something healthy in circumcision, and the violent attack in the fable. both seem equally evil. - is the difference that the child did not actively consent?
that is the same
is the difference that both parents did not consent?
i can change the parable to "he dared both parents and they agreed to cut the baby's cheek" does that change the issue? if both parents agree to do something evil, then it is still evil.
so what is the difference?
the one who insists on cutting jewish babies shows he is a jew-hater and it is a trick to call "protecting jewish babies" an anti-semite.
fable 2 similarly when trying to interrogate a suspect who will not talk-
if it is not "cruel treatment" to circumcise a healthy baby, then do it to the interrogated-suspect?
gasp! there must be a difference but what? if it IS cruel to an adult then an infant has the same right and not fewer rights!
if the suspect complains after the surgery we can say "some doctors claim that there are health benefits and it is routine to do the same to many babies in the US and Israel and muslim countries so what is the difference?"
it is difficult for me to isolate and identify what the difference is.
Is the difference that parents agree to perform circumcision?
parents who agree to cut their child's cheek would be punished - wouldn's they?
perhaps there is no difference?
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה