|
Well, first off, not all female circumcision involves cutting off the clit as has been mentioned earlier in this thread. As for a religious basis, while it is not explicitly required, as far as I know, in any sacred texts, many of those who practice female genital mutilation believe there is a basis for it within their religion.
To address the accusation that those strongly opposed to male circumcision are so adament about it because they may feel that they have made the wrong choice for their children and are seeking reassurance from others, it's important to note that I have no children, nor do I have any concrete plans to have any, and there are others who have posted strong opinions against circumcision in this thread that, as far as I'm aware, also do not have children.
Someone please honestly answer the following - it's been brought up before, but never actually addressed in this thread: What if I wanted to have my child's earlobes removed at birth because I thought ears without earlobes were more aesthetically pleasing? Would you fully support my right to this and not consider it an unnecessary and cruel practice? Earlobes have even less function than the foreskin does. To paraphrase UsTwo, I think pro-earlobe zealots would be quite amusing in their fervor over something which, at worst, makes it impossible to wear the typical earring. So, would you not only support my right to have my child's earlobes removed, but endorse the action as acceptable parenting as well? In fact, why not also remove my baby boy's nipples as well? They serve no purpose either. How many doctors do you think would perform such procedures? How many do you think wouldn't report me to child services for even SUGGESTING such procedures?
__________________
Le temps détruit tout
"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling
|