1.2 It is really amazing that we allow this primitive practice to exist in the 21st century, even in supposedly civilized Western nations. It is more amazing that some people try to defend the mutilation of boys' privates, making every kind of specious argument. Other people try to say that female circumcision (female genital mutilation, FGM) is worse than male genital mutilation (MGM); for them, it is all right to mutilate boys, only.
1.3 To those who say circumcision prevents disease: there is some evidence this may be true. Boys who are circumcised may be less at risk for some STD's, including AIDS. But why is this? Probably because the boys do not practice genital hygiene. Anyway, the only real protection against STD's is a condom, not circumcision. Furthermore, the medical/ hygienic argument could also be made for girls. If cutting baby boys keeps them cleaner, and thus healthier, then cut baby girls to keep them cleaner and healthier, too. If not, why?
1.4 In any case, the evidence for medical benefits of circumcision is scanty and debatable. But if we do cut a baby's privates because it may prevent disease, we should even more cut out his tonsils and appendix, to prevent tonsillitis and appendicitis. How about that? Cut all the baby's "unnecessary" parts to prevent possible future diseases.
1.5 Then some insist that cutting a baby girl's privates is much worse than cutting a baby boy's. They go into all kinds of anatomical details to show that MGM is nowhere near as bad as FGM. What difference? They are still cutting a baby's privates.
1.6 Even if cutting a baby girl were more damaging somehow, would that make it all right to damage boys? Since partial FGM (removing the "hood", which is performed in some places) causes approximately the same degree of tissue loss as MGM, does that make it ethical to partially mutilate girls? Baby cutting is baby cutting.
1.7 Is it ever ethical to cut anyone else's body, without their permission and without strong medical reasons? How much more, then, their private parts, especially of helpless babies. Why are we, in the supposedly developed nations, allowing and even defending this barbaric practice?
1.8 In the early 1990's, when FGM came into the public eye, women's rights advocates attacked it vigorously, as they should have (of course they were unconcerned with MGM). Then, when FGM was defended as a valid cultural tradition, many of the the feminists fell silent. Why are feminists today not attacking FGM, which has even spread to Western nations in which Islamists live? Where are the bold feminists to save baby girls now?
1.9 Some feminists question whether Westerners have the right to impose our cultural values on those who practice FGM. If these people were, let us see, raping and stoning women to death, would it then be all right to "impose our cultural values"? If not, then it seems that cultural relativism trumps women's rights, even baby girls' rights. Shame on those feminists who have abandoned girls and women in favor of "multicultural correctness".
2.0 The real reasons for circumcision, whether of boys or girls, are cultural tradition or religious beliefs. In these United States, we do not allow people to harm children, even as an expression of religious beliefs. The US Supreme Court has tried several cases involving religious people who endanger their children as a part of their religion, and the children's interests win out. It is in the children's interests now to abolish the barbaric practice of circumcision.
2.1 It is so obvious that the mutilation of babies is hideous and should be abolished, that I suspect a bias at work. To my knowledge, although some countries have outlawed FGM, circumcision of boys has not been abolished anywhere. What could be keeping MGM so well protected?
2.2 Who circumcises boys most regularly? And who has the ideology to require circumcision? The Islamists circumcise boys and girls, but they have not been in the West in large numbers until recently. Also, they cut babies in secret ceremonies, out of the public eye.
2.3 The only other group that has an ideology of circumcision is the Jews. The practice began with Abraham in Genesis, and is codified through Moses. The Torah (the "word of God") requires that all males be "circumcised in their foreskins", and faithful Jews around the world keep this law, inflicting agony and mutilation on baby boys. And the law of the land gives tacit consent to this barbarity.
2.4 When anyone tries to abolish circumcision, Jewish voices loudly complain that no one has prohibited their religious practices "since the Nazis". Of course, any comparison to Nazis silences rational discourse, and the cutting of little boys' privates continues. I conclude that circumcision is permitted largely because of the Jews. In this case, archaic religious rites trump children's rights.
2.5 However, I would like to point out that Jews are also in the forefront of the anti-circumcision movement. Organizations such as the Circumcision Information Center (CIC) are staffed largely by Jewish physicians and others. To their great credit, these people have seen through their religion's abusive demands; they have seen that human rights override "divine" laws.
2.6 Bible-believing Christians, who (as I once did) practice the "rod of correction" or spanking of children, also violate their rights. In what situation, other than spanking, do we allow one person to to hit another? If an adult hits another adult, not in self-defense, it is legally an assault. How much more, then, when an adult hits a child. Spanking is nothing more than child abuse, and should be abolished.
2.7 Whether the issue is withholding medical treatment in favor of prayer, or spanking, or cutting a baby's private parts, the answer is clear. The rights of children supercede the demands of tradition or religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment