Sun, 1 Aug 1999 09:17:32 -0400 (EDT)
> I think this is utterly ethically wrong. I think as a culture, it is
> inherently wrong that we brutalize infants without there consent. The
> medical needs for circumcision are basically gone in modern society, and
> circumcision can always be performed when medically necessary at a later
> date (I know a number of men who had circumcisions in their 30s and 40s).
Well, I agree somewhat. But given the current supply of neonatal skin
cells from these operations, it would be a crime to have people die
because skin grafts aren't available.
> Non-consent genital mutilation is a crime. I actually find it very odd
> (considering how sexist our world is) that female genital mutilation has
> gained international attention and condemned, yet male genital mutilation
> has been ignored. Is this because the religions (most notable Judaism) that
> require male genital mutilation are more accepted to the west than the
> religions and cultures (various African ones, for example) that require
> female genital mutilation?
Clitoridectomy and infibulation are really much worse than foreskin
removal. Much, much worse. Go investigate the effects each of these
practices has on its victims.
<firstname.lastname@example.org> Kragen Sitaker <http://www.pobox.com/~kragen/>
Fri Jul 30 1999
99 days until the Internet stock bubble bursts on Monday, 1999-11-08.