Re: female circumcision-Arguing at cross-purposes

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Megan Adams: "Re: female circumcision-Arguing at cross-purposes"
• Previous message: Gil Hardwick: "Damage?"

In article <CKwGRIUV.fin1uz@flashmag.flashmag.com>
waltervj@flashmag.flashmag.com writes:
>Well, I disagree with you. Both female and male
>nonconsentual circumcision should be _BANNED_ no matter if
>they are cultural or religious practices for the precise
>reason that they are mutilations that violate the basic
>human right to grow up with a health, intact body and make
>ones own decisions about ones body as an adult.

The majority of men who have been circumcised have healthy bodies. Since
circumcision does not take away a healthy body, it does not violate the right
to one.

Bob Bales
Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.

• Next message: Megan Adams: "Re: female circumcision-Arguing at cross-purposes"
• Previous message: Gil Hardwick: "Damage?"