Comment

San Francisco to Vote on Circumcision Ban

78
Interesting Times5/19/2011 7:49:42 am PDT

re: #77 Obdicut

This is a debate I’ve most determinedly avoided, but your post reminds me in no uncertain terms of arguments I’ve heard from anti-circ types on FGM articles. So, if you’ll permit me to play devil’s advocate: what’s to stop them from re-writing your post like this?

In Jewish African culture, having a foreskin clitoris is, to put it mildly, a blemish. To force a child in that culture to forgo this trivial operation is much closer to child abuse than to have them undergo it. They are going to be socially ostracized and made to feel as the other.

Now, of course you can just say, “Well, that’s Jewish African society’s fault”, but that is not, in the least, looking out for the best interests of the child…And those claiming to view this as child abuse are ignoring entirely the social impact of not getting circumcised, and the obvious outcome this law would have that observant Jews people in those cultures would continue to get their children circumcised, in secret.

In other words, if you permit the practice for one culture, you have to permit it for all - that’s what they say. You’ll note I snipped (er, no pun intended) the parts where you talk about medical/health issues. That’s because, in my view, the only logical way you can rebut the cultural/religious relativist argument is by saying one practice is not harmful, while the other is.

Do you agree with this? Because every time there’s a news article somewhere about FGM, it will be swarmed by anti-male circumcision people making the arguments above, and I’m genuinely interested in how you would rebut them.