As a man, I find it appalling that any mother (any parent, really) would think it ok to remove a part of her son's genitals.
Questions of abortion rights, for instance, are fought for as being issues of personal choice. Circumcising your infant son removes the adult man's choice to have his genitals intact. The parents' decision to do it eliminates that boy's right to complete sexuality.
Just as tattoos are illegal (purely cosmetic) so should circumcision be illegal. Removal of the foreskin is not cosmetic surgery and is a has a permanent effect on the most delicate part of a man's body. Does anyone else think it is bizarre that no one complains about the tattoo law against children but would complain about the circumcision law as a issue of parental choice???
Comment Reply
As a man, I find it appalling that any mother (any parent, really) would think it ok to remove a part of her son's genitals.
Questions of abortion rights, for instance, are fought for as being issues of personal choice. Circumcising your infant son removes the adult man's choice to have his genitals intact. The parents' decision to do it eliminates that boy's right to complete sexuality.
Just as tattoos are illegal (purely cosmetic) so should circumcision be illegal. Removal of the foreskin is not cosmetic surgery and is a has a permanent effect on the most delicate part of a man's body. Does anyone else think it is bizarre that no one complains about the tattoo law against children but would complain about the circumcision law as a issue of parental choice???
November 17, 2010 - 4:42pmThis Comment
Reply