Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
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.
|
It's extremely oppressive, because it runs counter to the fundamental principle that when children can't give consent - because they are children - then it is the parents' right and responsibility to give that consent.
Furthermore, you're trying to hide your prejudice behind reasonable-sounding arguments about adult consent. Perjorative words and phrases like 'mutilation' and 'live like that for the rest of their lives' are a gross misrepresentation of what a male circumcision is.
If removal of the foreskin is in any absolute sense a 'mutilation' of the body, then it would be mutilation even if it were carried out for medical reasons. Yet nobody, but nobody, refers to it in those terms. The physical appearance is barely more dramatic than a post-operative scar.