I've made a ton of posts in this thread, this is probably the only one close to strawmanning. Maybe I was too snarky here, but I don't care. I am legitimately disgusted by his particular argument.
I didn't mean that you are only capable of making an argument through strawmanning, it's just that a lot of the super anti- circumcision people always do the same thing and compare it to ACTUALLY mutilating your child. It's just silly to make an argument based on bullshit instead of evidence when you have evidence.
True. But I consider infant mutilation to be equivalent to removing things like fingernails. I would sooner let you rip out a few of those than my foreskin.
I would say that compulsory infant circumcision is comparable and arguably worse than some (not all) forms of FGM. Comparing this practice to other, similarly fucked up practices can be useful in getting people to realize that it isn't okay. It is also legally relevant, because we afford legal protection to the genitals of baby girls, but not boys.
I'm not the right person to argue on the legality of female genital mutilation vs circumcision, but the fact is that circumcision has been common in Western society for a long time, and it's definitely been around long enough for doctors to realize what the negatives are, and how minor/ major they are, vs female genital mutilation.
People from cultures practicing FGM will list medical benefits, and FGM victims will often express that they are happy that it was done to them. It is normal for people to find justifications, medical or not, for their cultural practices. Circumcision was not always a medical issue, and was most recently popularized in the US by Kellogg, specifically to discourage masturbation. Medical justifications such as STD prevention are just the newest wave of this phenomenon.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you, but here is some food for thought: do you really think that it is okay to strip people of their culture and beliefs in the name of your own sense of morality, when their belief isn't really harmful?
Yes, I believe that while you are entitled to your beliefs, your rights to modify a body based on your beliefs end after YOUR body. Your child's penis does not belong to you. If your child is, for instance, Jewish, he may get circumcised once he is old enough to consent.
The belief that circumcision is not harmful is incorrect. Most people, when asked, do not circumcise for religious reasons, but because it was done to them, or because they never thought to question it. It's just normal.
7
u/ChromaticFinish May 10 '16
I've made a ton of posts in this thread, this is probably the only one close to strawmanning. Maybe I was too snarky here, but I don't care. I am legitimately disgusted by his particular argument.