Circumcision is, of course, just a holdover
from a barbaric past.
Medically speaking, circumcision either of males or females is of
course just a holdover from a barbaric past.
No enlightened modern Jew, Muslim or generic American -- groups that cultivate this cultural trait -- should even consider it for their children.
A cultural identity strongly contingent on the mutilation of babies can't be worth hanging on to without modification.
Before anyone calls me a xenophobe, let me state that I don't single out cultures and religions for disrespect: I disrespect harmful traits of all cultures, including my own. I'm an individualist.
Don't be cultural cattle, people, think for yourselves!
Male circumcision may protect men to some extent from catching
Male circumcision may protect men to some extent from catching
HIV from women, a recent discovery that may become somewhat
useful in Third World countries with a rampant HIV epidemic.
Countries, incidentally, where a safe and clean circumcision is hard to come by.
So there's no question that I'm against circumcision.
So there's no question that I'm against circumcision.
My quandary is whether a secular state should aid those deluded
individuals who want to put their children through the procedure.
individuals who want to put their children through the procedure.
I have a feeling that it's against the Hippocratic Oath for a physician to
perform a circumcision without a purely medical motivation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ooOoo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ooOoo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
No comments:
Post a Comment