Re: female circumcision-A

Christopher King (
Sun, 27 Nov 1994 14:44:00 GMT

On 11-27-94 WNN6850@VAXA.ISC.RIT.EDU wrote about Re: female

W>In article <>,
W>>> (Walt What basic human right laws are you
W>>> referring to ? I thought laws were define by leaders for their
W>>> fellow people according to what is deemed morally right at the
W>moment. >

W>Nop ! I didn't just jump on the key board. offcourse slavery was
W>wrong however that was caused by greedy leaders. Thats is why we are
W>still having problems today. If this basic human rights were so basic
W>why did the western society wait till so long to acknowledge them ?

W>>> Plus you seemed to be ignoring something, this so call
W>>> mutilations are not meant to be degrading or serve as punishment.
W>>Plus you are ignorant of the origins of circumcision. It was used
W>>as a punishment for boys for masturbating in England
W>>and in the USA. Then people rationalized it as a good thing to
W>>do routinely to stop masturbation. Later other rationalizations
W>>were given but in all cases it is a mutilation (check the dictionary
W>>for the meaning if you are so unclear.) The medical authorities
W>>throughout the world recognize routine circumcision as having
W>>now medical benefit and it has significant medical risks including
W>>disfigurement or amputation of the penis, infection and even death.
W>I think that maybe you should go and recheck your facts.
W>Circumcision didn't originate in England nor the usa.
W>It's been in england for just a relatively short time.
W>If the english decided

If memory serves me I believe Jewish people were doing it according to
the law of god quite a long time ago. As a religious practice it was
also an act of purification if that's the correct word. In any case it
wasn't a "mutilation" designed to denigrate as some other people here
have been suggesting.