Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
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?
|
Perhaps not, but neither is it right for something that has such a weight of heritage and religious and cultural significance to be banned simply because of the moral predilections of one specific culture at one specific point in time.
There is no medical reason to ban male circumcision; you yourself have formed an argument that is essentially moral in nature (the question of whether parents should decide such things for their children), yet when you talk of what 'should survive' it's difficult to see how you could determine what survives without resorting to legislation. And legislating for or against religious or moral observance is a very, very tricky road to go down.