pearljammer said:
I think that that is a misplaced argument though. Regardless of the end result, shouldn't we first look to discover whether or not it is ethical? I mean, modifying one's genitals without consent, I would think, is hardly anything to take lightly. Firstly, none of the benefits of circumcision are necessary to a child's well-being. So why should a parent be allowed to make that choice for the non-consenting child when such an operation is typically unnecessary? Secondly, if we are to accept what I had just said above as ethical, would it not also be ethical to modify children in other ways that may be only marginally beneficial? I mean, should I have the choice to have my infant's appendix removed simply due to fear of a future infection, however unlikely it may be? On Topic: No. Foreskin remains intact. |
This is reason enough.
