Bradley M. Kuhn
Sun, 1 Aug 1999 09:38:34 -0400
Kragen Sitaker wrote:
> Brad writes:
> > 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.
I suppose that's correct. However, I wonder if the supply would then feed
support for doing it.
I have similar issues with using aborted fetal tissue for purposes like
this. I am not against abortion rights; but I worry that the culture will
start to push abortion over, say, better birth control because of the demand
for fetal tissue.
It seems that this would be much like that.
> > 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.
I know about it already. However, my argument was not which is worse but
rather than the worse one has efforts thrown into it, and the issue on the
lesser side isn't even discussed.
Of course, I already know my SO's arguments about this one. :)
- email@example.com - Bradley M. Kuhn - firstname.lastname@example.org -