A 31 year-old Illinios woman wants doctors to circumcise her 8 year-old son against the objections of his father. story
This is outrageous! Girls are allowed complete control over not only their body but seperate bodies growing inside of them and boys are not even allowed dominion over their penis? This makes no sense to me. First, why does this woman want to have her 8 year-old son circumiced? This sounds border line sexual to me.
I think that all arguments over the health ocncerns are void in this country. Perhaps in Africa where AIDS is everywhere and the foreskin does help spread the disease it is necessary, but in this country it is only for cosmetic purposes. There has been no recent studies pointing to a need for circumcision. If a boy wants part of his penis snipped it should be for him and him alone to decide (when he is an adult).It is dehumanizing to allow mothers or fathers dominion over their childs penis.
I realize the Jewish religion has ceremonial traditions that demand that babies get this done, but I think it should be illegal for parents to force this on their children. Certainly the covenant would mean more if it was undertaken by an adult fully aware of this implications of this decision than a child who has no idea of what is happening. Religous ceremonies should not be legally protected when they give away a humans rights. Nobody in this country believes for a second that Muslims should be able to cut off the clitoris, why is the foreskin any different?
Certainly, parents should not have complete control to force cosmetic surgery on their children. A just society would allow boys control over their own penis, would it not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Interesting post! I saw this article earlier today on NewsMax. Don't know quite what to make of the whole thing. I can understand why circumcisions were performed in the historical past, but I am not sure why they continue to be performed. Seems that it is a traditional right of passage for some, a religious practice for others, and just the way things are done for the rest.
As you point out, there is no compelling evidence today to suggest that circumcisions are needed for cleanliness or to stop the spread of disease - at least in the West. As such, I am not sure why insurance still covers it. On a more humane level, I don't see the point of the amputation. I agree that they should just leave it be. When a man is old enough, he can have it removed himself if he so chooses.
I think the difference between the woman/abortion issue and the circumcision issue is fairly simple. Women are vocal in their opposition to laws regulating their bodies. They also throw their weight around at the ballot box. Men either don't care enough about the weiners or are too embarrased to talk about their units in public. There may even be a little homophobia lurking there as well.
A father should have no right over his son's penis. This rights should lay soley with the boy. If the boy wants to permanantly alter his genitals then he should do it when he is an adult. This is a human right! Nobody should have dominion over anothers body. Certainly a parent would not have the right to tatoo their child.
I am not talking about how it is but how it should be.
You do not agree with me because I do not think that parents should let their child decide, but rather it is none of their business.
Perhaps, you believe that the muslim tradition of removing the clitoris should be respected as well? Or is that not a tradition you follow?
Post a Comment