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.
|
Your argument appears to be that it must be alright because it has survived, which frankly is utter bolleaux.
I'd be interested, seeing you suggested that not all rituals are acceptable, what you would suggest as a set of rules to determine if a ritual involving children is or is not acceptable. I'd be very surprised if this list did not involve some notion of harming a child. What's more: I'd be very surprised if many of the rituals that would be banned would be covered by existing legislation (i.e. banned by the state).
I think the only way in which you could conceivably justify allowing circumcision is on the basis of it being a long-established practice. Frankly, I'd say, that is a very thin reason.