The word 'Mutilation' - some questions
Find a Conversation
|Thu, 05-17-2012 - 8:34pm|
We all agree that female circumcision is mutilation, but when the word is used to describe male circumcision there is an outcry condemning its use - yet in physical terms the two are exactly the same. The genitals are cut and nature's intent is destroyed. This is undeniable.
1. Does a parent who chooses to circumcise her/his boy understand this fact?
2. If so, does she/he simply accept his mutilated penis for his current and future good? Or is it a blind act of 'normalcy'?
3. Did nature make a mistake which we must correct until the penis evolves without a foreskin?
4. What peer-reviewed evidence exists in support of a severed foreskin?
5. Finally, an old but frequently asked question: why should a boy be circumcised at birth, rather than leave him intact until he is he is old enough to endure the pain and understand why - in the rare event of it being medically necessary?