Okay circumcision is often preformed between the first 48 hours to 10 day of birth, so let's ask a child between that age and see what they have to say.
You're missing the point. I used children instead of newborns for a reason. Children can understand what is right and wrong by two years of age. Until a child no longer wants to be owned, the parent has the ability to do whatever he likes with him. Any person should be allowed to buy or sell a child because they are essentially slaves, or property. However, this form of property, in my eyes, is conditional. If the child claims self-ownership, or no longer wants his biological parents to be his guardians, he should have the right to. Read the article I linked.
It brings up interesting points. I'm going to delve a bit into abortion, as well. Abortion is a touchy subject because people have been asking the wrong questions. It isn't a matter of when conception begins, it's a matter of creation of property. In the article, it brings up the point that "if, in some future decade, a scientist becomes able to create human life in the laboratory? The scientist is then the "creator." Must he also have a legal obligation to keep the child alive? And suppose the child is deformed and ill, scarcely human; does he still have a binding legal obligation to maintain the child? And if so, how much of his resources â" his time, energy, money, capital equipment â" should he be legally required to invest to keep the child alive? Where does his obligation stop, and by what criterion?"
"Let us consider the case of poor parents who have a child who gets sick. The sickness is grave enough that the parents in order to obtain the medical care to keep the baby alive, would have to starve themselves. Do the parents have an â¦obligation to lessen the quality of their own lives even to the point of self-extinction to aid the child?"
Parents must be able to make these decisions without being considered criminals. The parents are the ones who are held responsible if anything happens with their child, but they still are told what they can and can't do with their child, even though they created it?
My point here is, parents should have non-consensual ownership of the child until he no longer wants to be owned. I am not in favor of the parent being allowed to do whatever a parent pleases with a child
Once a child claims self-ownership, he is free from the coercion of his parents. However, what if his parents want to murder him while he is owned? Technically they are in possession of him. It is a disgrace that any parent go to the lengths of abusing a child. The only way I can see a parent being incarcerated for maltreatment of his child is by murdering, torturing, mutilating, or sexually abusing him, with intent.