I am finding it hard to really connect to any of the religion arguments being made in it's favour, probably not a surprise as am I an atheist. However, I can't get past the notion that it involves making an irrevocable mutilation to a child who cannot consent and will live like that for the rest of their lives, regardless of any later decision they take regarding their faith.
I don't think it's especially oppressive to say that it's not allowed without the adult consent of the person being operated on.
---------- Post added at 19:43 ---------- Previous post was at 19:35 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
The reason I mention all this is to reinforce the point I made earlier. You're attempting to set your own very specific, early 21st century secular Western cultural mores against a practice that has survived around the world for millennia. When you say, "I do think it's right people think about what it means for a parent to decide it's alright to remove part of a boy's anatomy," set against all the countless millions of people who have happily circumcised their boys as part of their religion, even under persecution, your demand for them to see things in your own terms, which are so narrow in both time and in culture, is just a bit small-minded.
|
The fact it's survived around the world for millennia doesn't mean it should survive today. I don't think it's a fallacy to use our own moral norms to make decisions today, that's all we can really do. We shouldn't make decisions that go against them because of the past. Aren't these similar arguments made when some Muslims, some, use their religion and historical precedent to justice the role of women for example?