|
See, for me it doesn't even matter how valid that source is (and, by the way, I agree - it's suspicious). What it all comes down to - setting all the possible negatives aside (and there have been more valid sources showing negatives, albeit less sensational as some other sources might have you believe) - is that it is the permanent removal of a body part, without the person's consent, for absolutely no necessary medical reason. If there WERE a significant medical reason, penile problems would abound in Europe, Australia, South America, etc - all places where circumcision is quite rare. I mentioned earlier, the circumcision rate in Australia is about 10%, and it's not dissimilar throughout most of Europe.
Surprisingly to me, someone actually responded that they'd be fine with me having my child's earlobes removed after birth. I'm not sure if that person was serious, but I'm pretty sure that person is in an extreme minority if they were. The best any medical organization is willing to say is that circumcision maybe, potentially might have slight medical benefits. And, by no surprise at all, that's from an American source - again, the ONLY country in the world that regularly performs non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision. It is a cure in search of a disease.
The point is, it doesn't even really matter if circumcision isn't BAD. The point is, it's not really even GOOD. It just IS. And when we're talking the permanent removal of a body part on a helpless child who has no ability to consent, that's simply not a good enough reason.
__________________
Le temps détruit tout
"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling
|