I'd like to clarify some things regarding this post. While I was a bit vague, I never tried to justify the practice of circumcision on ethical grounds. In fact, I said, "My son was circumcised the day he was born, and my daughter had her ear's pierced at 3 months. Horrors! I'll ask their forgiveness when they're old enough to give 'informed mercy'." This quite clearly shows that I think circumcision is an act of injustice, albeit I considered it a very small, tiny, act of injustice.
But I think I may have been too cavalier about it. Perhaps because I was circumcised, as was my father, I allowed the "normalcy" of it to cloud my judgment. The fact is, circumcision is a form of genital mutilation. I have no problem with my genitals having been mutilated, and I don't think my son will either, but obviously I, nor he, will ever know what life would be like with intact genitals. We simply won't.
What will I do if I have another son? With complete honesty I can say: I don't know. What I won't try to do, and haven't, is justify my decision on libertarian grounds. I believe it would be ethically wrong, but I can't say that that would stop me.
UPDATE: On second thought, I think "genital mutilation" is inaccurate. After circumcision, one's genitals are still completely useful. When I think of mutilation, I imagine something nearly destroyed. Maybe "genital alteration" is more accurate.
Loading
|
|
