Re: Circumcision Information Network/7 Jan 1995

Kim Burkard (
Tue, 17 Jan 1995 18:19:51 GMT

From: (Aaron ben Saul)
>Seriously, though, I was under the impression that sci.anthropology was a
>science newsgroup. That would make it the wrong newsgroup by all logic to
>push moral beliefs.
>Secondly, since you are pushing moral beliefs your run the risk that your
>arguements, while valid under your own belief system, may not be valid under
>those of others. For example, the article in question is against male
>circumcision (which it degradingly calls "male genital mutilation"). The
>arguements used against it are not valid to me, as I, an observant Jew, hold
>by a code which requires male circumcision. Since I hold that the code I

But a month or two back, there was a thread in this newsgroup about
female and male circumcision. There were many postings about it with
a variety of opinions. Should circumcision be discussed in this newsgroup?
Why not? It seems to me that a newsgroup concerned with the culture of
various peoples would also be interested in where various cultural or
religious beliefs come into conflict with current scientific or medical

As far as saying it is a "moral" statement by calling circumcision
"genital mutilation," I don't think so. What it circumcision in the
scientific sense? It is the cutting away of the foreskin on the male
and the cutting away of the labium and/or clitoris on the female. What is
mutilation? The cutting or damaging of something in such a way that it is
less than the original or at least permanently altered. Is not circumcision
gential mutilation?

I find your post to contain more religious values and moral beliefs and less
facts than the orginal posting to which you refer and to which you are


Kimberly Burkard | _ Everything I needed to know in
Xerox, Rochester, NY | _____C .._. life I learned from my ferret: | ____/ \___/ Be flexible and go with life's | <____/\_---\_\ twists and turns.