Male Genital Mutilation

Of course, Salon criticizes Russell Crowe’s opposition to the politically correct practice of circumcision. Unfortunately, Crowe wants to outlaw circumcision, rather than let parents decide. But it is also vicious for the state-medical complex routinely to inflict this painful procedure on baby boys, and charge a high fee for it. (BTW, I notice that the pro-lifers who quite rightly worry about pain and the unborn ignore circumcision.) From a medical and libertarian standpoint, this is the best article I’ve seen on the practice. If you are a prospective parent, please read it. NB: You will have to make a fuss to protect your son.

UPDATE from Mike Brewer:

One of my heroes is Dean Edell, the radio doc. Just before the birth of my first son, he railed against the barbarous practice on my lunch time drive. He convinced me it was wrong, and both my boys are as God made them!

UPDATE from Stephen B.:

Why do you think Crowe is wrong for wanting to outlaw circumcision? Should parents be allowed to do anything they want to children? What if a religion preached that only the one-legged could be “saved” and enter into heaven? Would it then be acceptable to allow parents to amputate a child’s leg?

Like a leg, a foreskin does not present any danger to a person in childhood or adulthood. Any possible danger, as the result of unsafe sexual practices in adulthood, can be addressed by the person when they are an adult, by a change in their behavior or by the choice to have a circumcision.

What a person cannot do is chose to have have a circumcision done in childhood undone as an adult, just as they cannot chose to have a leg un-amputated. If government has a purpose, it surely must be to prevent nonreversible harm from unnecessarily befalling those who cannot defend themselves.

UPDATE from Jive Dadson:

Circumcision is aggravated assault resulting in permanent injury. If the government has any proper functions at all, one of them certainly is to outlaw violence by one person on another. The fact that the injured party is a child and the perpetrator has a duty to protect that child only makes the crime more appalling.

Share

7:41 am on June 27, 2011