Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Believe it or not, I was aware of the contents of the BMJ report when I posted the link.  |
DAMN!!!
Quote:
Clearly there are caveats - however in the context of a discussion of the minor excision of a piece of skin that has been carried out safely and cleanly for millennia, arguing over exactly where the line is between 'acceptable' and 'not acceptable' is a bit pointless. Being unable or unwilling to define that line makes no difference whatsoever to the issue at hand, namely circumcision. Hence my polite refusal to start debating the merits of allowing people to join death cults.
It's interesting that you say there is a case to be made for "extending that reasoning" to all practices that are not medically essential. I can see why you would want to frame your case so that only the factors you consider relevant should be considered (I.e. medical ones). However, given that the world is an overwhelmingly religious place and even the UK is hardly a hotbed of humanism, I think you need to work a bit harder. Your argument really needs to offer some convincing reason why religious considerations, and the rights of parents, should be set aside.
|
Actually, I'm not saying there is a case to be made for "extending that reasoning" to all practices that are not medically essential. I'm specifically limiting it to irreversible, outwardly visible interventions that serve no medical purpose. There's a difference between having your ears pierced, and lopping a bit of your willy off. At the end of the day, it's my dick and I'm kind of attached to it. I'm glad my parents have left the decision as to whether or not it should be structurally altered up to the only person qualified to take that decision. Me
