- Taking it off, for convenience, or tradition does not harm anything.
You make it sound like cutting hair or something. They don't "take it off". They forcibly separate the foreskin from the glans (which would ordinarily not separate until later in life, protecting the glans during childhood) and then they slice off all the functional parts of the foreskin along with an arbitrary amount of penile skin, leaving the mobility and appearance of the future man's penis decided by the whim's of the mutilating doctor. Thus leaving an open wound and unprotected mucous membrane festering in feces and urine-filled diapers (because it's cleaner). I guess this bloody business doesn't fall into your definition of "harm". The victim is left with a hobbled approximation to a natural penis with no foreskin structures, millions of missing nerves, ugly varicose veins that have been clamped off by the amputation, and a dried out, unprotected, calloused glans. With so many nerves gone, and the mucous membrane of the glans scarified, it's a wonder it works at all. How many premature ejaculation and ED problems are caused by the fact that circumcised men are missing most of the actual nerves that ordinarily control arousal and orgasm?
Removing extra folds of skin is mutilation? Under that same standard, face lifts will be outlawed next.
People undergo facelifts voluntarily. I don't see any reason why voluntary circumcision should be illegal either. I only object to removing functioning genital parts from innocent children, who will be forced to go their whole lives with their penis hobbled because of their parents' primitive traditions.
Back and forth... I do see both sides.
There is only one sensible side. Let the person choose for himself if he wishes to modify his body, if for some reason he is not satisfied with the way it came from the factory. These arguments always revolve around the merits of circumcision, which are irrelevant IMO. I'm not interested in the debate of whether circumcision is actually better or not, because it doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to forcibly perform genital modification surgery on children.
If parents feel it's right, so be it. Likewise if they feel the other way.
I'm wondering if you apply this algorithm logically. Should I be able to cut off my child's outer ears? Nose? Some people pierce their baby's ears when they are still too young to walk. The whole area of parental freedom vs. children's human rights is kind of grey. I lean toward less government--government is evil of its own--except in cases where human rights are being violated.
if a woman has a right to privacy with regards to murdering her unborn baby, then outlawing circumcision should fall under the same right to privacy.
I agree completely, which is why I--consistently--think that
both abortion and genital mutilation should be illegal...with some exceptions. I consider being anti-genital mutilation to be perfectly aligned with being anti-abortion. In both cases, it's innocents whose inherent human rights are being violated against their ability to protect themselves, and those that perpetuate harm against them should be punished and persecuted.
this is simply an attack on Judeo/Christian traditions.
Jewish, or Muslim, maybe. Don't see what it has to do with Christianity. FWIW, I'm not a Jew or Muslim, and if my children want to convert, they can lop their on dangly bits off.
