You are reading a single comment by @Baerli_Baer and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
One is more abhorrent than the other, however it is still unneeded surgery on a child due to belief in fairy stories.
Baerli_Baer-
Out of interest / as a thought experiment, would your view change in the following scenario?
- it was a policy decision carried out safely at childbirth in hospitals in developing countries where there is a high incidence of STIs;
- the policy was based on additional data supporting the correlation between circumcision and lower transmission of STIs?
Sort of thinking about similarities/contrasts with the anti-vac arguments, and at what levels people are happy to remove individual freedoms to benefit society as a whole.
- it was a policy decision carried out safely at childbirth in hospitals in developing countries where there is a high incidence of STIs;
hugo7
I doubt anyone can put an argument forward saying they have the same consequences. So I'll leave that point.
But from my understanding yes.
Male circumcision is a practical way of ensuring male hygiene, and reducing disease when you're wandering about in the desert with sporadic access to water in a pre-condom world. I'm not up on Jewish hygiene practices, but for Islam cleanliness is a fundamental part of life.
When constructing a philosophy for you and your community to live your lives by, including cleanliness is pretty reasonable. Who here likes sitting next to smelly people on a bus? Or thinks cooks should wash their hands?
Preventing girls/women from sexual pleasure because "you know what they'll get like if we don't" is fundamentally different. It's about control, and deep cultural misogyny. Even before you get to the process.