Jump to content
Last login: Monday, January 25, 2010
Sorry, olsentm, but I simply do not understand the assertion that male and female circumcision are "completely different".
In one case, a normal healthy girl is having a part of her genitals cut off without therapeutic need or personal consent. In the other a normal healthy boy is having part of his genitals cut off without therapeutic need or personal consent. What is the difference?
Is female circumcision more damaging than male circumcision? Possibly, but both practices the deny the child's right to autonomy - the right to make informed choices about the fate of their own body. There is the wealth of difference between circumcision and imunisation or ear-piercing since piercing and immunisation remove no tissue. That said, I think piercing a child's ears is wrong too.
Children all have a right to keep their genitals intact whether male, female or intersex.
January 25, 2010 at 2:05 p.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )
© 2013 KPBS