Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
It's quite bizarre. The anti-circumcision crowd typically relies upon the following false arguments:
1. It's equivalent to female genital mutilation: No, it's not. Cutting off a clitoris is not the same as removing foreskin.
2. It affects the pleasure a man feels: No, it's scientifically proven not to.
3. It has no health benefits: No, it prevents infections and STD transmission. We live in a society with easy access to anti-biotics little HIV exposure. Our policy makers do not, therefore, feel from a cost-benefit analysis standpoint everyone should have the procedure done.
4. It causes excess trauma to children: No, I've yet to meet anyone who remembers it. Every child I've seen have it done forgot about it within hours.
5. The people who have it done are motivated by some kind of malice towards children: No, it's typically done for reasons of custom or health.
The only argument that holds any ground is that it's a permanent choice that baby's cannot make themselves. Once again, it's a parents legal right and obligation to make choices for their children. Those rights and obligations typically continue until age of majority.
|
What about the argument against causing babies needless pain? It seems to me that pain in that moment is a bad thing, regardless of whether or not it is remembered. It also seems that it's needless.
If someone said to me "Hey, why don't you stab our baby in the arm with this fork? It's our cultural tradition, and he won't remember it later anyways." I would still choose not to stab that baby with the fork, and I would think that was a pretty stupid tradition.