Bris milah wasn't nearly as harmful and at least left the victim mostly sexually functional. Who the is someone to decide which healthy body parts a person gets to keep anyway? It's a massive human rights violation. Arabs used to stone people for adultery but is this allowed? Of course not. Religious freedom ends where another person's bodily integrity begins. We have a duty to protect the innocent who cannot fend for themselves.
Contrary to what most people think, the laws already in place clearly prohibit cir cision they are just not currently being enforced. The laws protecting females don't actually leave out males. This is a huge cash cow to doctors who have known the harmful effects for over 100 years in this country but continued doing it for the profit.
Read this, specifically at the bottom. It talks about how doctors are warning their colleagues not to do this because they CAN be sued, and how the first lawsuits are already coming in as people have access to information with the internet. Even with consent, the doctor can be sued because a parent can't legally consent to a nonmedical removal of healthy tissue. Cir cision is classified as religious or cosmetic, not medical. There's also the issue of parents being mislead into believing in false benefits from cir cision. Read about it here.
http://www.doctorsopposingcir cisi...d_brochure.pdf

Reply With Quote

who says it's optimum? what studies prove that? or what logic for that matter.