2 of 2
2
CIRCUMCISON: A Short Humanist History of a Cause
Posted: 16 December 2006 08:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

My initial response was to stay out of this, however, the question is what is the motivation for a parent to have an irreversible procedure done on an infant?  Some listed have been:

A)  Religious requirement

B)  To look like his father or like all the other guys when showering.

C)  To decrease the liklihood or effectiveness of masturbation.

D)  To decrease the liklihood of getting or passing on NIV.
====
A)  While I disagree with the reason, I have to accept religious freedom.

B)  Just plain stupid.

C)  Stupid, and as I understand it, it doesn’t inhibit masturbation.

D)  OK, but what’s the probability that an infant, when grown, will be in a situation where he could even be exposed to HIV?

I wonder what the general reaction of the public would be if some parents had their infants tattooed over much of their bodies. 

My conclusion is that the decision should be left to the person when he reaches adulthood, just as tattooing is.

Occam

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2