Quote:
Originally Posted by asdfasdf32
Now you're qualifying your view with "today's climate". If a mass epidemic of religious infant paper cutting swelled out of nowhere, would you then be in favor of banning it?
I said the exact same thing the first time, not some new qualification:
Quote:
No I would not sign a bill today that banned this
If it was some mass epidemic, no I probably wouldn't want to ban it. But don't read to much into this, I am not in favour of a nanny state jumping into parenting decision in almost all cases. I would not be happy about it, certainly.
As I have said, this seems like a new and egregious hypothetical, but mostly this is just because it is both new and just seems viscous. I think that parents do a lot WORSE than paper cutting and we are normalized to this and just accept it. Even if it is going to do lifelong psychological damage, or increase significantly there chances of death and morbidity. This would not be the first time that religions do damage to their kids. You have not indicated any tendency to go along and ban these kinds of things.
Further, it should be noted that this is entirely consistent with my general theme of needing a standard of egregious harm. At some point, even I would support a ban if it was papercutting 100 times a day every day say. Because at that point the harm - physical pain and risk of infections and the like - start to become sufficiently egregious. Someone gives three paper cuts once a year in a ceremony, I don't care. But the general standard is the same.